Top: Winners Ojuku Kangar and Emmanuel Sherman pose with their certificates. The DayLight/Varney Kamara
By Varney Kamara
MONROVIA – The DayLight has clinched two of this year’s Forest Media Awards for journalists who report impactful stories on the forestry sector.
Emmanuel Sherman, an editor at the DayLight, won Best Report in the newspaper/online category, while Ojuku Kangar, scooped second place in the same category. Sherman walked away with a brand new motorcycle, and Kangar a laptop.
Aaron Geeplay, the station manager of the Liberty Broadcasting System in Sinoe County, sealed first place in the radio category, also taking home a motorcycle.
Henry Gboluma took second place in the broadcasting category, and, like Kangar, was awarded a laptop computer.
Aaron George of the River Cess Broadcasting System (RBS) and Eric Opa Doue of the Bush Chicken, completed the winning six in the third places for the radio and newspaper/online categories, respectively. Each walked away with a mobile phone.
“This is an encouragement for journalists covering the sector. We are being motivated by this award,” an excited Sherman told the award ceremony at the City Hall of Monrovia on Friday evening. “This shows that The DayLight and others are making a great impact in the forestry sector.”
Forest Media Award is a collaboration between the Liberia Media Center and the Multi-stakeholders Forest Governance and Accountability Program (MF GAP), with funding from the United Kingdom. It is an endeavor meant to improve and increase the frequency of quality news reporting in the forestry sector. Last year, three journalists received the inaugural awards, which were increased by three and extended to journalists outside the Liberia Media Center’s network.
“Highly qualitative, investigative, and well-researched stories will ensure the protection of forest revenue and promote sectoral resilience,” said Neil Bradley, British ambassador to Liberia. “The exercise will create opportunity and support for sustainable agribusiness in Liberia.
“It will lead to transparency and accountability in the sector, including the protection and restoration of forest resources,” Bradley added.
The Stories that won the Awards
Sherman’s winning story highlighted challenges women face in their participation in forest governance ahead of this year’s elections in communities affected by logging contracts.
British ambassador Neil Bradley flanked by four of the six winners. The DayLight/Varney Kamara
The piece that won the award for Kangar, a former reporter with The DayLight, uncovered a bogus memorandum of understanding between a community in District Number Two, Grand Bassa County, and a logging company. In the agreement, county and local officials sanctioned the company to extract logs in the area in exchange for a 75-kilometer dirt road without the approval of the Forestry Development Authority. James Harding Giahyue, the director/managing editor of The DayLight, broke the story in FrontPage Africa as a contributor in 2020.
The four other winning articles were equally interesting. Geeplay’s investigation focused on illicit occupants at the Sapo National Park. Gboluma, who also affiliates with The DayLight, reported a financial scandal involving leaders of the Korninga A Community Forest, who are now on trial for theft of property. Doue reported about the failure of logging contracts on rural communities in River Cess. And George’s story exposed the indebtedness of a logging company to a community in River Cess, showing the impact of the failure of the company to live up to its agreement in the lives of locals.
The DayLight Incorporated, a nonprofit, environmental online newspaper, was established in 2020 and began publishing in May last year. Throughout its short existence, it has published a number of investigative stories mainly on the logging industry, human rights, and land rights.
The awards were the institution’s first.
“This is very big news for The DayLight and all stakeholders involved in the forestry sector,” said Giahyue at the end of the ceremony. “As a young institution, we are honored to be recognized. This is a motivation and a justification for the sacrifices we are making.
“Those who want to win these awards in the future will have us to contend with,” he added.
Top: A pile of logs in Zorzor, Lofa County. The DayLight/James Harding Giahyue
By Varney Kamara
MONROVIA – President George Weah sidestepped the extractive sector in the State of the Nation Address last week, the biggest contributor to the government’s revenue envelope.
The extractive sector is expected to be the chief contributor to Liberia’s projected economic growth rate of 3.6 percent, according to the World Bank.
But in his speech to the Legislature, lasting for more than two hours and thirty minutes and dominated by infrastructural projects, Weah spent barely five minutes talking about agriculture and energy. There were no mentions of mining, forestry, or oil/gas.
The extractive sector accounts for the largest share of Liberia’s gross domestic product (GDP) annually. It accounted for US$79.6 million in 2018/2019, according to Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (LEITI) in its latest report. Mining contributed US$42,596,473 or 53.49% to the economy, followed by the agriculture US$26,009,261 or 32.66%, forestry US$8,148,559 (10%) and oil/gas US$2,878,411 (3%).
Weah spent most of the time of the speech on the economy. “Although the state of our economy is challenged, the fundamentals remain sound and strong,” he told lawmakers, to huge applause. “The state of our economy is stable, and the nation is peaceful.”
The President inaccurately cited the World Bank’s report on the country’s economic growth projection. The Bank made a projection of 3.6% growth but not an actual growth as he told the nation. He apparently deliberately left out the grim portion of the World Bank’s estimate.
“Liberia’s economy is rebounding after contracting for two consecutive years. Real GDP growth is projected at 3.6% in 2021, allowing per capita GDP to increase for the first time since 2016,” the bank had estimated at the close of 2020. “Nevertheless, poverty is expected to slightly increase as per capita consumption continues to contract, with the growth being driven by export of commodities.”
By Ambulah Mamey, International Agricultural Development Practitioner
Key Messages:
Liberia still produces less than half (0.2) cup of rice per Liberian, per day after spending hundreds of millions on projects to be self-sufficient in rice production.
Almost half of a billion (437.02 million USD) accounts for financial flow to Liberia’s agriculture sector- specifically the crop-subsector between 2018 and 2022.
The African Union has consistently ranked Liberia “NOT ON TRACK” to transforming its agricultural sector. Liberia failed 22 of 24 progress indicators in AU latest report.
96% of farmers in Liberia relied on informal market as the main source of seeds, fertilizers and other inputs because agricultural market is not functional. The World Bank says Liberia is the worst place for farmers to operate their business.
Cocoa, farmers in Liberia received 69.79% less average yield/hectare than farmers in Cote’ d’Ivoire, 69.22% less than farmers in Guinea, 65.6% less than farmers in Sierra Leone and 66.6% less than farmers in Ghana. Rice farmers are experiencing almost the same.
No poor country in the world has ever reduced poverty without increasing agricultural productivity. If Liberia should move out of poverty, it must prioritize the transformation of its agriculture sector and improve agricultural productivity!!
Liberians must sit up, shine their eyes, and begin to demand real sustainable results from stakeholders in the agricultural sector- especially NGOs and the Government.
Liberia produces less than half (0.2) cup of rice (its staple food) per Liberian, per day. But on average, a Liberian need a little over 1cup of rice per day. The rice per capita deficit is happening after decades of multiple donors and government projects- costing hundreds of millions of United States Dollars- that promise to make the country self-sufficient in rice production.
Most recently, from 2018 to 2022, almost half of a billion (437.02 million USD) accounts for financial flow to Liberia’s agriculture sector- specifically the crop subsector. This amount does not include financial flow to other subsectors including a 40 million committed to the fishery subsector and several other millions spent on “improving” Liberia’s agricultural sector by an army of NGOs deployed across the country. Of the 437.02 million, 145.9 million (33%) was committed before 2018, but only 18.6million was spent before 2018; leaving the remaining 127.2 million available for the current Administration to spend. The 437.02 million is in the form of grants 172,118,287.9 (39%), FAO’s projects 7.84M (2%), Government of Liberia’s budgetary support to agriculture 19.01M (4.35%), loans that Liberia will repay with interest, 185.6 M (42%) and 52.4 M (12%) from other sources including beneficiary and private sector contribution to donor projects, and the Government of Liberia’s indirect support that includes tax waivers.
Data are scarce in Liberia, and when they are available, they tend to be incomplete. Hence, the data collated and presented above- may not be the most accurate but present a good picture of agricultural spending and commitment between 2018 and 2022. The anecdotal estimate has it that- before 2018- over a billion was spent to make Liberia self-sufficient in rice production. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), World Bank, African Development Bank (AFDB), USAID, and FAO were and are currently the major donors or lenders. There is also an “army” of agricultural NGOs working to improve Liberia’s agriculture sector.
Except for three of the current projects that are scheduled to last for 4-6 years, funds from these organizations are spread across short-term (2-3yrs) projects, implemented piecemeal across Liberia. The projects are designed a bit differently with unique acronyms to match, but all projects work practically towards the same goals: to enable smallholder farmers to improve productivity and increase production and to improve agricultural markets. The projects also seek to increase farmers’ income, reduce poverty, and food import and improve food security and nutrition. For example, the AFDB and the Global Agriculture and Food and Security Program (GAFSP) say their “Smallholder Agricultural Productivity Enhancement and Commercialization Project” and “Smallholder Agriculture Development for Food and Nutrition Security (SADFONS) are being implemented to “Increase farmers’ income through crop intensification, value addition and market development and to improve food and nutrition security and reduce poverty; respectively. The World Bank says its “Rural Economic Transformation Project (RETRAP)” is aimed at “increasing productivity and market access for farmers and agri-enterprises” while IFAD’s Tree Crop Extension Projects have been seeking to improve the incomes and climate change resilience of smallholder cocoa producers.
Short-term agricultural loans, grants, and projects promising pathways to food self-sufficiency, and poverty alleviation have old footprints and are not new in Liberia. The AfDB’s first agricultural project was implemented in Liberia in 1968 and it sought to increase rice production. Later in 1977 the FAO entered Liberia and has been working to revitalize the agriculture sector. IFAD came in 1981 with its first smallholder rice seed project to increase rice production and has not left- except during the war. But previous and current interventions- costing billions of dollars- have not been able to transform Liberia’s agriculture to deliver what the country desperately needs and what its agricultural sector holds the key to provide: strong economic growth, food, and nutrition security and sustained rural poverty reduction and jobs for urban youths.
NOT ON TRACK to Agricultural Transformation: 15 years of Poor Agricultural Productivity, Low Production, Increased Rice Import, and Poor Nutrition Outcome
The “NOT ON TRACK” is consistent with many situations in Liberia and the following highlights of the agricultural input market- especially for seeds and fertilizers- are revealing. Agricultural Input Markets are among the first set of structures required to ensure the adequate supply of improved inputs (seeds, fertilizers, insecticide, and technology) to farmers, to boost productivity on their farms and increase production. But in Liberia, the market remains largely informal, disorganized, and hence, continuously failing to provide the quality and quantity of farm inputs the farmers need.
Up to 2017, about 96% of farmers in Liberia relied on the informal and unregulated market as the primary source of inputs. This informal market features traders from neighboring countries who supply mostly counterfeit/uncertified seeds, and fertilizers that contribute to low production quantity and poor quality that has kept many farmers in recurrent financial losses, and food deficit after months of hard labor. The number of farmers that use certified seeds in Liberia for the major crops (including rice and cassava) is just 8,137 (4%) of the approximately 203,442 farmers because the input market is nonfunctional and there is less attention directed to developing and enforcing policies that increase confidence for private investment. The dire situation with Liberia’s agricultural market is further explained in the “Enabling The Business for Agriculture (EBA)”, a World Bank study that examines to what extent governments make it easier or harder for farmers to operate their businesses. The EBA ranks Liberia the worst (101 out of 101 countries studied) in its overall 2019 ranking; revealing thatfragile countries, including Haiti, Mali, Sudan, and Iraq, scored better than Liberia in the overall ranking for enabling agricultural business. On a scale of 0 to 100 for registering fertilizers and supplying seeds, Liberia scored 0 for registering fertilizers and 7.4 for seed supply.Something very disturbing about the World Bank’s EBA report is that Liberia’s miserable performance is reported after another unit of the World Bank, USAID, AFDB, the Swedish Government and other NGOs have spent at least 200 million on no less than six projects (1, 2,3,4,5,6) that are focused- in a significant part or whole- on “developing agricultural market”, reforming agricultural markets”, “improving market access for farmers and agri-enterprises”.
These poor outcomes are further revealed in the trend and status of the productivity and production of major crops in Liberia, food imports and their attendant cost, and nutrition outcome -especially food-related non-communicable diseases. For the past 15 years (2006- 2020) the average yield per hectare for rice, cassava, and cocoa farmers in Liberia was significantly lower than their counterparts in neighboring countries (See Figure-2).
Cocoa, farmers in Liberia received 69.79% less average yield/hectare than farmers in Cote’ d’Ivoire, 69.22% less than farmers in Guinea, 65.6% less than farmers in Sierra Leone and 66.6% less than farmers in Ghana. Rice farmers in Liberia received 50.2% less average yield/hectare than farmers in Cote’ d’Ivoire received; 13.1% less than farmers in Guinea, 20.2% less than farmers in Sierra Leone and 45.8% less than farmers in Ghana. Rice is Liberia’s staple food, and almost every past and current leader in Liberia (President, Senator, Representative)- has promised to make Liberia self-sufficient in rice production. But after 15years of uninterrupted peace and spending billions to increase rice production, Liberia remains a food deficit country with a 15 years (2006-2020) average rice (milled) production of 181,411.13 metric tons; 568,588.87 metric tons or 68.17% less than the 750 thousand metric tons Liberians demand every year.At the current average production (181,411.13 MTH) and the current population of 5.058 million, Liberia’s rice value chain provides less than half (0.2) cup of rice per Liberian per day. On average, a Liberian consumes over 1cup of rice per day. Instead of taking bold but evidence-baked action to increase rice production and address the per capita rice deficit, Liberia finds comfort in importing rice. As the population grows, the rice deficit increases, and the import quantity and cost to import rice grows. Over the last 15years, rice import has gone north: from 210 thousand metric tons in 2006 to approximately 400 thousand metric tons in 2020; costing Liberia at least 200million on average.
The stark underperformance of the sector is influencing diet-related non-communicable diseases and other poor nutrition outcomes among Liberians as many revert to inadequate or low-quality food because of the unavailability and unaffordability of their required diet. Except for child wasting and stunting, Liberia is either off course or experiencing worsening conditions for the remaining 11 global nutrition targets. Particularly stark is Liberia’s limited progress towards reducing diet-related non-communicable disease.
Do We Still Need the Army of NGOs and Short-Term Multilateral Projects to Transform Liberia’s Agricultural?
The state of agriculture in Liberia could be worst without the NGO and multilateral projects, but Liberia’s agricultural sector will not get significantly better by relying on NGOs and multilateral projects as we do now NGOs have very important roles to play. They are good at diagnosing and “treating the symptoms” of agricultural development problems but have no good record of “curing” those problems. Liberia’s chronic agricultural development problems need an urgent cure, and because the country’s policy makers’ longstanding conviction in NGOs’ and multilateral short-term projects has proved naïve, it is time for a structural reorientation of the approach to agricultural transformation.
Such reorientation demands a lot; but to begin with, Liberians need a strong showing of their government in the agricultural sector as a strategic and major participant with predictable interventions and as an effective enabler of private capital flow and functional agricultural markets. “Political will” must be manifested in increased agricultural spending, but only on evidence-informed, outcome-based, and impact-focused interventions that are intentionally designed to be rigorously assessed for progress, challenges, and new lessons. Obviously, the current purchase and untargeted distribution of mineral fertilizers to farmers- without knowing the nutrient needs of their soil- is not one of the interventions.
For the army of NGOs and multilaterals, they will need to retreat faster than the current snail pace to doing what the evidence shows is the best ways to use their resources: facilitate, encourage, and support locally owned and managed initiatives and enhance the responsiveness of government services. Most importantly, Liberia needs Liberians, the media, and project beneficiaries or participants to sit up, pay keen attention, and begin to demand transparency and accountability from NGOs and the government for funds they receive, projects they implement, and what they promise those projects would deliver.
A well-functioning agricultural sector is the fastest and most equitable “forklift” to lift and keep Liberians out of poverty. Absolutely nothing other than agriculture can be a more reliable source of food security, jobs for rural and urban youths, foreign exchange, savings, and sustainable economic development for Liberia. From Asia, Europe, the Americas, it is growth in agriculture- for the most part- that enabled countries to record remarkable economic transformation and improve living standards. In Africa- closer to Liberia- the impressive economic transformation across Africa (South of the Sahara) beginning in the 2000s was driven mainly by the agriculture production growth rate. With all that has happened over the past 15 years ( 2006-2020), it is urgent that every Liberians sit up, shine their eyes and begin to demand real sustainable results from stakeholders in the agricultural sector- especially the NGOs and the Government.
Author: Ambulah Mamey is an International Agricultural Development Practitioner. The views expressed in the article are personal and do not represent any of the institutions he works with, or the DayLight.
Top: A worker labels logs in Akewa’s log field in the Beyan Poye Community Forest, Margibi County. Photo credit: Akewa via Facebook
By Emmanuel Sherman and James Harding Giahyue
Editor’s Note: This story is the first of a two-part series on Akewa Group of Companies’ operations in Liberia, focusing on the lapses of the Forestry Development Authority. The second part will emphasize the shortcomings of communities in which the company has operated.
VARGUAY, Grand Cape Mount – In 2019, Gola Konneh Community Forest signed a logging agreement with Akewa Group of Companies. The parties agreed that the company would log in to the community forest for 15 years and pay the community fees for the use of the land and the felling of timbers. The company promised to build schools, clinics and roads.
But nearly three years after, the deal has not worked as the community had expected. None of the projects have been conducted despite it felling over 4,615 cubic meters of logs in the 49,179-hectare forest, according to documents we obtained. Akewa owes the villagers US$86,081 in land rental and log-harvesting fees.
“Nothing is going on,” said David Wiazamuah, an elder in Varguay, the headquarters of Gola Konneh community forest leadership. Wiazamuah and other villagers were hopeful that the deal was going to help develop the district.
“I feel bad,” Wiazamuah told The DayLight in an interview.
Gola Konneh is one of three communities Akewa—owned and run by Nigerian businesswoman Abigail Funke Odebunmi— has signed agreements with and has failed to live up to. It has an agreement with the Beyan Poye Community Forest in Margibi County, and another with Compound Number One B in Grand Bassa County as a part of a logging contract, known across the industry as timber sales contract area three (TSC A3). Akewa owes all three communities a combined land rental and a timber-harvesting fee of US$159,526, dozens of social development projects, and thousands of United States dollars connected to their respective agreements over a period of nearly 14 years, according to available, official data.
In March 2017, two years before its Gola Konneh deal, Akewa signed the agreement with Beyan Poye, which covers 33,338 hectares of forestland in the Gibi District, promising to build roads, schools, clinics and handpumps. Since then, it has not implemented a single project, except a handpump. It owes the community US$63,749 in land rental and log-harvesting fees for four years. Throughout this period, the company has only paid the community US$2,900 for logs it has felled there. However, Akewa exported 3,506 cubic meters of logs in 2018 from Beyan Poye, according to the Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (LEITI). That means it should have paid the community US$7,888.50 on that shipment alone, according to the agreement.
Mrs. Funke Odebunmi at Akewa’s log field in the Beyan Poye Community Forest in Margibi. Photo credit: Akewa via Facebook.
Following nearly five years of rigmarole, the community leadership has decided to go to court to nullify the agreement.
The situation with Compound Number One under TSC A3 is even worse. (In Liberian forestry, the FDA awards TSCs and companies are required by law to sign a social agreement with villagers who manage the forest). Akewa signed the social agreement with the community on June 27, 2008, but has only paved a stretch of dirt road, leading into its contract area. The company owes villagers in the Compound Number One area US$9,696 for at least 11 years. Meanwhile, Akewa did not pay any fees for harvesting, according to locals. The DayLight could not independently verify this and other claims due to the FDA’s refusal to grant our request for Akewa’s official payment records and log-shipment dataset, public documents under the National Forestry Reform Law and the Freedom of Information Act of 2010. Paradoxically, C. Mike Doryen, FDA’s managing director, is the chairman of the board of directors of the LEITI, established to publish payments in the extractive sector. We have written the Board of Directors of the FDA for redress and will update this story once we get the information we seek.
Akewa’s failure to comply with forestry laws and regulations would not have been the case if the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) had exercised its functions as the regulator of the sector. The DayLight’s investigation into Akewa’s track record in the industry, dating as far back as 2008, shows the FDA watched it flout various provisions of laws and regulations with impunity across all of its agreements. Ignoring legal requirements, FDA repeatedly approved a new agreement for the company, despite the firm’s poor record with a previous one.
The irregularities associated with the company’s operations have denied the three rural communities much-needed benefits from their forest resources, a key component of Liberia’s postwar forestry reform agenda.
“The company lied to us,” said Oretha Dargbeh, a member of the community forest development committee (CFDC) of TSC A3 in Compound Number One.
Compound Number One Violations
Primarily, Akewa majority Nigerian shareholding violates the National Forestry Reform Law of 2006. Under the law, a company with a timber sales contract—covering at most 5,000 hectares—must have at least 51 percent of its shares held by Liberians. The law even mandates the FDA to report to the Legislature once in five years on the impact of that portion of the statute on the Liberian economy. All of Akewa’s shares are held by Nigerians—Odebunmi 60 percent, Chief Kenneth Amazeika 20 percent and Timothy Odebunmi 20 percent. Furthermore, its 2021 business registration reflects it is Nigerian. It was unclear whether the company met that requirement when it obtained TSC A3 in 2008, as Akewa’s article of incorporation does not show its initial shareholders. Nevertheless, the company’s current ownership status indicates Akewa was barred under the “Liberianization” clause of the law. The FDA should have canceled the contract at least as early as 2010, the year Akewa first amended its article of incorporation, leaving it a majority-Nigerian-shareholding corporation. The company initially registered at the Liberian Business Registry on June 29, 2009, proving it did not have a business registration certificate when it obtained TSC A3. That is a contravention of the Business Corporation Act of 1976.
In the first place, Akewa’s TSC should not have lasted for more than five years. Legally, a TSC runs for three years and can be extended by two. That means all 11 TSCs, including Akewa’s, which covers a combined 50,000 hectares, overstayed their legal periods. A report by the Civil Society-led Independent Forest Monitoring Coordination Mechanism found logs worth nearly US$2.5 million were harvested outside an adjacent contract area, with the FDA taking inadequate actions against the companies involved. It was only in September last year that the FDA halted logging operations in all TSCs, according to Andrew Zelemen of the National Union of Community Forest Development Committee (NUCFDC), who attended a stakeholders’ meeting in November, where it was announced.
Beyan Poye was Akewa’s second ill-fated spell in Margibi County, though. Back in 2012, it was involved in the infamous Private Use Permit (PUP) Scandal, in which some 2.5 million hectares of forests, or 23 percent of the country’s landmass, were illegally awarded to logging companies. Ironically, Beyan Poye covers 22,163 hectares of Akewa’s illegal PUP. Then-President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf signed an executive order canceling all PUPs after an official inquest, and the moratorium has not been lifted. That investigation found that the people of Gibi did not consent to the company’s use of their land, the Akewa PUP overlapped with a private property and was never resolved. The company did not have a business plan—a major prequalification requirement that provides information on companies’ financial and technical capacity.
Beyan Poye Violations
Amid its involvement in the scandal, coupled with outstanding payments and failure to live up to the social agreement in connection with TSC A3, the FDA approved Akewa’s agreement with Beyan Poye on March 25, 2017, breaking, once more, a number of provisions of forestry laws and regulations.
Workers sit on a pile of logs in an Akewa log field in Compound Number One, Grand Bassa County. Photo credit: Akewa via Facebook.
And while Akewa remained hugely indebted to Beyan Poye, the FDA has continued to sanction the company to ship timbers from that community forest. That is a breach of Forestry Development Authority Ten Core Regulation (107), which calls for firms to be clear regarding all forest-related dues before export. In fact, that was sufficient ground to terminate the agreement per the National Forestry Reform Law.
Gola Konneh Violations
The FDA repeated its shortcomings in the Akewa-Gola-Konneh deal, ignoring Akewa’s debt to Beyan Poye and Compound Number One. FDA has approved two shipments from the forest—one each in November last year and another earlier this month. Being clear of all forest-related fees is not only a pre-shipment requirement but also a pre-qualification requirement for a new contract as per Resolution 103-07.
But now Akewa was about to heighten its notoriety.
In February 2019, just a month before the FDA’s approval of the agreement, Odebunmi was accused of using a fake tax clearance to bid for the 49,179-hectare forest. A Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA) inquiry later found her guilty as accused. “I am pleased to inform you that the LRA having reviewed all of the tax clearances presented, found Akewa Group [of Companies] liable of issuing fake tax clearances and to the effect that the tax clearances issued were not LRA’s original tax clearances,” Varfee Holmes, LRA’s communication, media and public affairs officer, said in an emailed reply to The DayLight. We had filed a freedom of information (FOI) request for findings of that investigation, which had not been made public.
There was no evidence that the LRA took any actions against Odebunmi. A lawyer, who spoke to us on condition of anonymity, said LRA should have fined her under the Revenue Code.
Having used a fake tax clearance, the FDA should have denied Akewa from participating in the bid under Regulation 103 – 07, which disqualifies representatives of companies convicted or penalized for forgery, or unfair competition. Instead, Akewa went on to defeat five other companies—Greenwood Resource Company, Auzy International Limited, Master Loggers and Sing Africa Plantation Liberia Limited—and won the bid. A month later, the deal was in full swing, giving the company a year grace period to pay land rental fees and four months after harvesting logs there. The FDA ought to have issued a fine or inform the Ministry of Justice for a possible lawsuit against the company as per logging laws. Forgery is a criminal offense under the New Penal Law of Liberia.
The Liberia Revenue Authority (LRA) found Akewa used a fake tax clearance to bid for the Gola Konneh Community Forest in Cape Mount but did not penalize the company. The DayLight/James Harding Giahyue
Revenue over Rightfulness
While communities have struggled to get their just benefits from Akewa over the years, it has paid the government with ease. The company paid the government US$1,618,960 between fiscal years 2009/2010 and 2018/2019, according to The DayLight’s breakdown of the LEITI’s reports of those periods. The forestry sector generated US$8,148,559, the third-highest revenue (10.23%) in the fiscal year 2018/2019, according to the latest LEITI report.
Civil society actors criticize the FDA for downplaying communities’ benefits while ensuring companies pay the government’s taxes and royalties.
“The FDA is grossly negligent, prioritizing the central government above communities,” Jonathan Yiah, a lead forest campaigner at the Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) told The DayLight in an emailed statement. “It is not forthcoming with accurate information about extraction by logging companies, which the companies are mandated to provide in order to assist communities to determine arrears of the companies.
“The FDA should improve its mandated oversight responsibilities by equally prioritizing government’s collection of fees and taxes along with communities,” Yiah added.
Efforts to get the FDA’s side of the story and other issues did not materialize. Following several failed visits and phone calls for an interview, The DayLight wrote a letter to Joseph Tally, its managing director for operations, on January 6 with queries. We attached a three-page questionnaire on all our concerns. We were scheduled for the interview on Tuesday, January 11 at 10:30 am but Tally rescheduled it to an indefinite date. We again visited the FDA headquarters in Whein Town, Paynesville but Tally insisted the entity’s commercial department would get back to us at their own time. We had first contacted William Pewu, the head of that department, on the matter as early as in December last year.
Akewa did not respond to any of our queries for comments. Odebunmi initially agreed to speak with us on December 11—after many failed attempts—and then declined a formal interview when we finally met her. We emailed her our questions as she had requested but she still did not respond.
This story is a part of The DayLight’s Forest Accountability and Transparency Reporting Series.
ULIMO killed the husband and a son of Hawa Nyonkor, a farmer and resident of Menigesua, when rebels of the warring faction seized Foya in June 1993. They burned down her family’s rice kitchen and looted their cattle.
“I would have loved him to answer some questions [in a courtroom] before he died,” Nyonkor told The DayLight about Kromah, who died last week after a protracted period of illness aged 69.
Farmers were the most common of ULIMO’s victims. Rebels belonging to this faction looted their produce, burned villages, and forced them to head-carry loads on long distances to the Guinea border. Those who refused or became tired were killed, locals said. Two ex-generals of ULIMO—Mohammed Jabbateh and Alieu Kosiah—are in prison for crimes they committed during the Liberian Civil War (1989-2003) including murder, looting and forced transport.
Locals blamed ULIMO for the destruction of most of the infrastructure in Foya, Kolahun, Voinjama, including farmers’ warehouses, powerhouses, and a gigantic palm oil mill in Foya, operated by the Liberian Produce Marketing Corporation. The destruction of the region made it lose its breadbasket status, something it is still recovering from today.
Farmers The DayLight interviewed expressed frustration Kromah did not account for the crimes the group allegedly committed.
“I did not know Kromah in person, but I would have loved to face him in court for the bad things he did,” said Verseline Ndopa, a farmer who witnessed ULIMO’s looting in Foya.
“Kromah will be remembered as one of those who brought war that destroyed this country,” said Moses T. Fayia, general manager of Intofawor Farmers Multipurpose Cooperative (IFMC), Liberia’s oldest and largest with a member of 4,000 farmers.
“My only regret is that he is no more alive to answer for crimes he committed,” Fayia added.
Remnants of a palm oil mill operated by the Liberia Produce and Marketing Corporation (LPMC) before ULIMO rebels looted it in the mid-1990s. The DayLight/James Harding Giahyue
ULIMO was formed in May 1991 in Sierra Leone by runaway soldiers of the Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL) and Mandingo refugees. A precursor to the formation of the group was the killings of more than 200 people in the town of Barkedu in Quardu-Gboni District by the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), led by future President Charles Taylor. Taylor’s forces had accused Mandingos of siding with the AFL under the command of the late President Samuel K. Doe.
Throughout its existence, ULIMO mainly rivaled Taylor’s forces for Lofa and the mineral-rich western parts of the country. By the time the group was disbanded in 1997, it had committed 11,564 war crimes, or seven percent of all the crimes the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) heard. When the group split in 1994, Kromah’s ULIMO-K faction committed 6,079 or four percent of all the crimes, according to the TRC. In 2009, the TRC recommended Kromah, Taylor, Doe (posthumously) and the heads of all warring factions for prosecution. Kromah vehemently denied any wrongdoing, telling the TRC in 2007 ULIMO only killed its own members when the group split.
However, more than 12 years after the TRC report, Liberia has still not established war crimes. Jabbateh is in jail for 30 years in the United States for immigration fraud and perjury in connection to the war in Liberia. Former NPFL spokesman, Thomas Woewiyu, who died in a Philadelphia prison in 2020 of coronavirus, was also convicted in the United States for immigration crimes linked to the war. Kosiah is serving a 20-year term in Switzerland over war crimes under universal jurisdiction, which allows a country to try residents over offenses they committed on foreign soil. Chuckie Taylor is serving a 97-year sentence in the United States for murder and torture in Liberia. Former President Taylor’s 50-year prison term is for crimes he committed in Sierra Leone.
Kromah was the fourth former rebel leader to have died without facing prosecution. Doe died in 1990, Francois Massaquoi of Lofa Defense Force 2001 and Roosevelt Johnson of ULIMO-J 2004. That means Prince Johnson of the Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL), George Bolley of the Liberia Peace Council (LPC), Sekou Conneh of the Liberian United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD), and Thomas Yaya Nimely of the Movement for Democracy of Liberia (MODEL) are the only former rebel leaders alive to be prosecuted.
War crimes court campaigners say time is running out for the court.
“There’s no justice for the people of Liberia,” former TRC commissioner Massa Washington told the BBC.
“It’s a loss of hope for both victims and human rights campaigners,” said Adama Dempster, head of the Civil Society Human Rights Platform in an interview with The DayLight. “This should claim the government’s attention.”
This story is a part of The DayLight’s Human Rights Reporting Series.
Top: Prof. Jovica V. Milanovic, the author. Photo credit: Spreckley
By Prof. Jovica V. Milanovic
Editor’s Note: Professor of Electrical Power Engineering at the University of Manchester, Fellow of the IEEE and former member of the Governing Board of the IEEE Power & Energy Society. The views he has expressed here are of his opinions, and not The DayLight’s.
The term “net zero” has been on the lips of many a climate expert, politician, or sustainability advocate for some time now, and occupied much of the agenda at COP26. Striving for such a goal will be crucial in minimizing rises in global temperature in the decades to come, and ensuring our planet is safe for future generations to inhabit.
The discourse around net zero is often punctuated by grand gestures, heady promises, and bold statements about how we can and should reach it. It is hugely encouraging in many respects to see such commitment to a singular aim, but it’s also important that we take a step back and consider the ins and outs of what needs to be done to make net zero a reality.
The truth that we must face is that net zero will come at a substantial financial cost to governments, businesses, and public sector organisations. There will also be a significant burden for the general public to bear, whether through higher taxes, more expensive vehicles, or the inconvenience of having to change, to an extent, their ways of life.
There are many balances to be struck and trade-offs to be made in the pursuit of net zero, and it can only be reached if we all understand and are prepared for these.
Net zero: the principle
In order to illustrate the work that needs to be done, we should establish exactly what net zero means. In the broadest terms, net zero refers to when a business, country or the entire planet isn’t adding to the amount of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere. This means reducing emissions as much as possible, while offsetting any remaining emissions and cutting down on practices such as deforestation.[1]
More than 130 countries around the world have pledged to reach net zero by 2050, with the movement given renewed impetus by discussions at COP26. Russia, meanwhile, has said it will achieve the goal by 2060, while India has stipulated a date of 2070. China has asserted that it will reach “carbon neutrality” by 2060.
These promises have been met with optimism by some experts: Tim Lenton, head of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, described methane reduction targets outlined at COP26 as a “good start”. Ulka Kelkar, an economist heading the Indian climate programme for the World Resources Institute think tank, was effusive when describing India’s net-zero pledge, saying it was “much more than we were expecting to hear”.[2]
Net zero is clearly a great ideal to aim for in principle, but there are a multitude of requirements to be met for it to be truly realistic.
Making international collaboration work
Reaching net zero on a global scale means getting governments, businesses, and other institutions on the same page. On a planet of close to eight billion people and with a plethora of different challenges facing each country, this is much easier said than done. For example, nations such as China rely much more heavily on fossil fuels, such as coal, to meet their vast energy demands, and will be reluctant to give up this abundant and locally available resource, even under pressure from the international community.
There is also the problem of governments making unrealistic or outlandish promises that they are either unable or unwilling to keep. For countries to collaborate effectively, it is crucial that they hold each other to account for the promises they make, and steer away from performative statements that do little to support the long-term net zero goal. It is a complex, labyrinthine challenge, but one to which we must all commit.
The everyday impact
Achieving net zero means spending money on the grandest of scales, in order to develop and implement climate-friendly technologies and bring them into the mainstream. While much of this financial outlay will rest with businesses and governments, it is inevitable that a large proportion of this, in one form or the other, will be passed down to the general public.
This can be seen in new schemes encouraging people to purchase electric vehicles or replace their gas boilers with heat pumps, both of which are prohibitively expensive for the vast majority even with existing government subsidies in place.
Net zero will also likely mean more expensive bills, food, goods, and travel, estimated by the National Infrastructure Commission to cost families up to £400 extra per year.[3] If these rises are to be accepted, governments must work closely with citizens to gauge their opinion on the necessary changes to be made and ensure the benefits are clearly always articulated to them so that no one is left behind. Ambitious net-zero targets can only be achieved with widespread public support.
Technology limitations
Renewable energy technologies have come a long way in recent decades. The UK’s progress in this area is strong evidence of this, with renewables accounting for 43% of the country’s domestic power generation in 2020, a contribution which has more than doubled since 2014.[4]
However, the fact remains that renewable sources still don’t offer the reliability that many non-renewable sources do. The potential of wind or solar power, for example, is blunted during prolonged periods of unfavourable weather. In contrast, a carbon-free yet non-renewable source such as nuclear offers a far higher capacity factor[5], which suggests it should form an important pillar of global energy infrastructure in the years to come.
Other technologies designed to aid the shift to net zero are also some ways from maturity. Battery storage, a fairly mature, and hydrogen, a fairly new energy storage technology, have immense potential to offset the use of fossil fuel power generation and increase availability (and such ultimate efficiency) of weather-dependent renewable power generation, such as wind and solar. They are though still facing some challenges both technological and related to application at the power system level. Electric cars are also rapidly growing in sophistication, but the charging infrastructure needed to make them fully viable still lags behind.[6]
Making the net zero dream a reality
With all of the above in mind, it is now important to establish exactly what else needs to be done by all stakeholders in order to fulfil their net zero promises.
The first element is the need to carry out massive recruitment drives to increase the number of people in climate-focused technical and social roles. Technology is the turbine that will drive the net-zero juggernaut for the decades to come, so governments, businesses and other interest groups need to do everything in their power to attract people with the requisite technical skills, such as IT, data analytics, cybersecurity, and engineering. Similarly, social science and public engagement experts are needed to help with understanding and acceptability of the necessity of transition by the society at large. These people also need to be rapidly brought up to speed with the unique challenges of the sector and ensure they are incentivised to remain in net zero-focused roles.
Further, there is an urgent requirement to accelerate the rate at which low- and zero-carbon technology is developing. Recent breakthroughs in battery storage energy systems (BESS) and hydrogen are encouraging[7] but this progress needs to be accelerated where possible. The aforementioned need to recruit more people into technical roles will play into this.
Perhaps most crucially of all, those driving net zero initiatives need to win the hearts and minds of the general public. Hence the need for social science and public engagement experts. This means governments, energy firms and other companies figuring out how the poorest and the most vulnerable in society can be supported in a world of higher bills and empowered to embrace zero-carbon alternatives in their everyday lives, so that no one is left behind. Expanding the UK’s Renewable Heat Incentive[8] could be one of the ways of moving towards this.
Conclusion: a marriage of ambition and realism
The net zero goal is a noble one, and recent pledges by world leaders have certainly imbued the cause with a renewed sense of optimism. The most important thing of all, though, is to be realistic in what we can achieve in the short, medium, and long-term future. If achievable targets are set, the right financial investments are made, and the most disadvantaged people are not made to suffer, there is every chance our efforts will be successful, and the society at large will fully support a transition to net-zero.
Top: Johnson Flomo, the chief officer of Korninga A Community Forest in Gbarpolu, and two others are accused of misusing US$76,000. The DayLight/Henry Gboluma, Jr.
By Henry B. Gboluma, Jr.
KORNINGA, Gbarpolu County – Three members of a community forest leadership in Gbarpolu County have been jailed for allegedly misusing $US76, 000 intended for social benefits.
Johnson Flomo, Austin Kamara, and Dennis Flomo of the Korninga ‘A’ Authorized Forest Community are being held at the Bopolu Correction Center after they were indicted in November last year by the Bopolu Magisterial Court for theft of property.
They allegedly withdrew US$US49,000 in July and $US 27,000 from the community forest’s account for their own use, thereby depriving the community of its benefit, a violation of the New Panel Code of Liberia, according to court documents. That amount was paid towards schools, roads, and clinics by Covieyallah Investment Enterprise, which had had a commercial logging agreement with the community since April 2019 for its 48,296-hectare forest.
Johnson Flomo, who is the chief officer of the Korninga’s community forest management (CFMB) body that represents the interest of the villagers in forestry deals, claims that he and the other accused men spent US$2,000 on a traditional ceremony and US$US1,750 to procure two motorcycles, US$US1,300 on legal services. He also said they spent US$1,310 for community-workforce training, US$6,275 for forest resources management training, and US$3,300 for Christmas gifts to five community leaders in December 2020. He even claimed that they spent US$2,000 to open a bank account with the International Bank Liberia Limited in Monrovia and US$500 on a round-trip to Monrovia, despite the leadership owning two motorcycles.
The log field of Coveiyalah, which has an agreement with Korninga A and paid the US$76,000 at the center of the lawsuit. The DayLight/Henry Gboluma, Jr.
The US$27,000 withdrawal was not approved by the entire leadership of the community, a violation of the Community Rights Law of 2009 with respect to Forest Lands. The law mandates all expenses to be approved by the community’s executive committee, which comprises a lawmaker in whose constituent the community falls, and the community assembly, which has a full representation of affected villages and is the highest decision-making body in Liberia’s community forestry. Kamara and Dennis Flomo are chairman and co-chairman of the executive committee respectively.
The court has frozen the community’s account until Mulbah Harris, the acting magistrate hearing the case decides.
Otis Karmon, Jr. is the plaintiff in the case, representing the community.
The three defendants risk prison terms and could lose their community forest leadership positions.
Stakeholders’ views on the case
People in Gbarpolu have welcomed the process.
“People who cannot hear will feel,” said Keyah Saah, superintendent of Gbarpolu County, in an interview with The DayLight. “I’m therefore supporting the indictment and calling for their rapid trial… to discourage the misusing of money accrued from community forest management bodies across the country.”
Ruth Varney, the regional forester of the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) said, “This is the first instance case against CFMB members in Gbarpolu, so we are going to support the affected community to fully implement the court ruling to save the resources from their forest.”
