PIPELINE, Paynesville – World renowned charity organization, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have successfully implemented a running water supply system, bringing much-needed relief to the residents of the Red Hill community in Pipeline, Paynesville.

The long-awaited project, implemented by the Evangelical Rehabilitation Children Program (ECREP), a local partner, promises to transform the lives of countless families who have endured years of struggling to access clean, reliable, and safe water for their daily needs.

The Red Hill community, situated in the Pipeline area of Paynesville and home to over 2,000 residents, has faced significant hardship due to the lack of clean water. Many families were forced to walk long distances to fetch water from nearby rivers and streams, often exposing themselves to unsafe conditions and waterborne diseases. This lack of a reliable water supply not only impacted the residents’ health but also hindered their progress in education, business, and economic opportunities.

During the project overview, CRS WASH Technical Advisor, Theophilus Davis, explained that in October 2021, CRS Liberia launched the Helping to Elevate the Lives of People in Small Cities (HELPS) project. This initiative, funded through CRS’s private WASH program, aimed to support the Liberian government in improving water services in urban and peri-urban areas.

Over three phases, CRS collaborated with the government, the Liberia Water and Sewer Corporation (LWSC), and the National WASH Commissioner to design and construct three modern, low-cost, community-managed water supply systems. According to Davies, this initiative has successfully provided basic water services to over 14,500 people across Kakata (Margibi County), the Newlife community (Johnsonville Township), and now the Red Hill community.

Davies highlighted the significant partnership in the final phase: “In 2024, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints partnered with CRS to co-fund the project, bringing additional resources and support. This collaboration enhanced the project‘s capacity and coverage, extending its positive impact to other communities.”

He further elaborated, “During this phase, CRS worked with its local partner, the Evangelical Rehabilitation Children Program (ECREP), and constructed a mini stand-alone water supply system, reaching over 7,000 people with basic water services and creating 7 new jobs in Red Hill Community, Johnsonville.”

CRS Country Representative Glynnis Cummings-John expressed her joy at the project’s completion and handover to the community and government. “We know the challenges that you have been facing over the years. We have seen the conditions at the water well where you have spent hours waiting and sifting water to make it drinkable, yet still facing health issues and children arriving late to school.”

She emphasized the transformative impact of the new facility. “We are so happy that this facility is going to make a dramatic change for this community. We are pleased to hand it over to you to take control and ensure its sustainability for yourselves, your children, and future generations,” she said.

Cummings-John extended heartfelt gratitude to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for their crucial support, stating, “The support that you provided has gone a long way to address the needs of this community. Words are really not enough for the support that you provided.” She also thanked the government and other collaborating partners for their roles in making the project a reality.

Representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Elder Daron Haddock conveyed his satisfaction with the partnership, saying, “We have come here to Liberia and have partnered with our CRS friends to do this project. We are thankful for the CRS work and very impressed with what they have done.”

He added, “It is a wonderful project, and we believe it will help others for many, many years. We are happy to be here with President Nyenforth, our area leader for this part of Liberia, representing the church in this humanitarian project. We hope you will all remember this wonderful day and our Father in Heaven, who has given you this opportunity to have clean water.”

The sunny afternoon saw the Red Hill community erupt in celebration as the clean water flowed from their new taps for the first time. Residents, young and old, gathered to witness this long-awaited moment. Cheers filled the air, children danced with joy, and families eagerly filled their containers, marking a symbol of hope and a new beginning for the Red Hill community.

MONROVIA – The Catholic Relief Services (CRS) of Liberia has launched a project named and styled Let’s Talk Peace Campaign as part of effort to foster peace across the country.

Country Manager, Abena Amedormey said the project is part of the Youth for Peace Activity (Y4P) initiative aim to engage the youths within three counties, Montserrado, Bong, and Nimba to ensure how peace can be maintained.

By M. Dennise Nimpson

Madam Amedormey told the launch at the Center for the Exchange and Intellectual Opinions (CEIO) on Friday that the maintenance of peace must be collective and the young people are cardinal to the endeavor.

The CRS Boss said the initiative will harness solutions to address pressing national issues within the corridors especially as the country prepares for general elections and thereof.

 “Let’s Talk Peace Campaign will be implemented with its partners to help articulate solution to emerging issues in Liberia especially before and during elections,” she said.

According to her, the fight against violence should be collective and should not be seen as only the duty of government, international organizations and donors as such the role of the young people are pivotal.

“Peace starts at the individual level, family, community, the state, and the world for each and every one play an important role to helping defeat violence. This work cannot be left to the government alone, the international organization, and the donors,” she added.

Madam Amedormey stressed that denouncing violence means everyone should speak out against violence by using the proper means.

“Being silent in the face of injustice allow violence to continue and during the act of speaking out against prejudice the most important aspect is to use nonviolence ways and the right channel,” she said.

The CRS country Manager told the gathering at CEIO that when intellectuals meet the ideology proffer must reflect peace and the CRS together with its partner the USAID is committed at ensuring such.

As the keynote speaker, Gwendolyn Myers, of the Messenger of Peace said only a continuous peace dialogue will accomplish peace, noting the talk of people should start from homes.

She said “Liberia has the best chance to heal divisions than any country, and this should not be an exception but a rule. We must cultivate that cautions optimism for a peaceful world and tall about peace.”

The launch saw the attendance of young people from several associations including FLY, and LINSU.

Monrovia – Catholic Relief Service, with support of the United States Agency for International Development, through the Youth For Peace Ambassador, has ended a one-day Youth For Peace activity in Caldwell, New Georgia Community with Motorcyclist, Tricyclists, and disadvantaged youth against acts of violence.

The one-day Youth For peace initiative also emphasized the need that young people developed a mindset toward development.

The endeavor is targeting three Counties, including; Montserrado, Grand Bassa, and Nimba.

Providing an overview at the start of the week, the Project Manager, Mazoe Cartee said the Youth for Peace Project, which is being implemented in Caldwell, New Community, will affect motorcyclists, community leaders, and disadvantaged youths.

According to her, young people have previously been noticed as those who used to provoke violence within the various communities across Liberia, which placed them under a negative spotlight over the years.

Madam Cartee noted that the project will shift a different picture for these young people as having the potential to create change, then create violence as Liberia progresses toward development.

Madam Cartee further maintained, that providing young people with this positive awareness and skill training, will encourage them to live in peace than violence.

She explained, that Caldwell New Georgia Community, Montserrado, and Liberia at large are free from the atmosphere of violence it will help the country improve in the areas of education, healthcare, and good governance as well as achieve their potential.

In his remarks, New Georgia Community Chairman Jerboh Botoe expressed appreciation to the CRS and USAID team for implementing such a project which he believes, will bring together over 200 youths from diverse aspects of the Community as well as the community to fight against violence.

For her part, making remarks on behalf of the women group in the community, Metah Johnson lauded the Catholic Relief Service and United States Agency for International Development and partners for the program, which she noted, helps them avoid violence.

Also speaking, Abraham Zantoe, Youth Chairman of the New Georgia Community, lauded CRS and USAID for conducting such an initiative that provides education and is aimed at eradicating acts of violence within the community.

Zantoe used the medium to call on the CRS team to continue the project across the country.

CRS -Youth for Peace Project is focused on the development of young people in the targeted communities.

However, the current one being implemented will focus on motorcyclists, tricyclists as well as the disadvantaged.

Born and raised in Liberia, I lived through much of the civil war in Liberia and spent time as a refugee in Guinea, Ivory Coast and the United States. As a Liberian, proud of how far our country has come and the peace we have enjoyed for over 11 years, I was very shocked when I read an article on Voice of America (VOA) titled “Half of Liberians Fear Country Could Plunge Back Into War”. This title was supposedly based on a report by the Catholic Relief Services on the State of Peace, Reconciliation and Conflict in Liberia.

This article and the report it was based on didn’t simply pique my interest because of the topic and how it would impact Liberia given the country is going through a milestone elections this year, it did because I currently run the largest research and evaluation firm in Liberia. We conduct a hefty amount of research for international organizations, so any report instilling this amount of fear and attempting to undermine the peace we have enjoyed would pique our interest.

I went to check out the report and after reading it, I quickly concluded that Catholic Relief Services (CRS) had an agenda and it was not to “advance justice and positive peace” as stated in the report – it was about fear mongering and attempting to undermine our peace.

The reasons for my conclusion rest in how this study was designed. From bias in the way the questions were constructed, wrong context analysis on Liberia, apparent lack of rigor in the data collection process, bad sampling design and study methodology, to lack of national representation of the study and more, and any good researcher could tear up this research at first glance so I am very concerned that CRS chose to publish this report knowing the gross limitations and the potential impact it has on Liberia.

Don’t get me wrong. We do want and welcome reports that are critical of our current state and can help us maintain our peace, but this is not one. It lacks the rigor and reeks of an alternate agenda. When I read the report, I quickly reached out to few of my research buddies who conduct polling and research globally to get their perspectives and they concurred with my conclusions and here are the 4 core reasons:

1. Inherent ambiguity and bias in how the survey tools were constructed

The questions are very ambiguous or biased in a way that a typical respondent may answer negatively. For example, questions 20 and 21 of the survey tools read: “Do you believe that Liberia can descend into another violent national-level conflict?” and “What is your assessment of the risk that Liberia can still descend into a violent national-level conflict, such as civil war, despite the peace it currently enjoys?”. 

There is a big difference between CAN and WILL in constructing survey questions. “Can” leads the respondents and the fact is “anything CAN happen”. Given the current state of the U.S, if that question is asked today, no one is 100% sure that the US cannot descend into a conflict. Secondly, there is no time period for this conflict. Had the question been written, “within the next year” or “within the next 5 years”, we could define impending conflict. But the researchers present a purely hypothetical option that might occur at any time in the future.

2. Inability of the research to design target specific questions could lead to questioning the result of the report

Most of the questions were asked to all respondents, when it would have been more appropriate to ask the question to only certain respondents. For example, Question 9 asks the respondent to compare Liberia’s current situation to the situation before the war. This would make sense for someone who is age 43 or older (approximately age 15 in 1989). Anyone younger than this would not have first-hand memories to be able to judge the pre-war situation.

I was 10 when the war started and I cannot remember any critical “situation before the war”. I remembered that my parents both worked and they worked very hard to send us to the best schools. What I do not remember was all the nuances that my older brothers, sisters and some friends now explain. They remember details that I was just too young to comprehend. CRS should have focused on asking target-respondent specific questions in this study, unfortunately we do not see a lot of that in their report.

3. Wrong context analysis on reconciliation and negative peace in Liberia

Almost every time friends and family who are not Liberian visit Liberia, they are always amazed at stories about former fighters roaming freely. Many can’t seem to understand how Liberians could “forgive” someone who killed their friends and family members and now see the person roaming around freely and even serving in government without reacting. In my mind, I am always wondering if those people who they think have forgiven would react if given the chance because that is in fact the true definition of reconciliation.

Using terms like “reconciled” in the CRS report is too vague to produce an interpretable response. Does “reconciled” mean that former rebels have shaken the hands of their victims and said “sorry”? Does it mean that all stolen property has been returned? Does it mean that your neighbor during the war who stole some of your rice has apologized and returned it? “Reconciled” means different things to different people — and after war, people often feel like they have never been compensated or appreciated for what they suffered.

Related to reconciliation is the concept of negative peace or positive peace. The report states that “66.3% of the respondents described it as “negative peace”—implying that even though Liberians are not openly fighting, they live under circumstances (e.g., laws, rules, regulations, policies, programs, and practices) as well as conditions (such as neglect, poverty, discrimination, etc.) that inflict hardship”.

First, Question 10, which CRS mentioned extensively in the report is biased towards producing a negative response.  Based on the wording of the question, one could easily say the US is in a situation of negative peace —even before Trump was elected! If you look at all the incidents of police brutality and race issues in the U.S, one could deduce that the U.S is certainly going through a period of negative peace.

I doubt even Johan Galtung, the father of peace studies, would have used the definition of “negative peace” in the context of Liberia knowing the historical context of the country. As I previously stated, one could easily say that the US, Nigeria, Ghana and so many other countries are experiencing negative peace.

4. Lack of rigor in the study approach and design

Bad sampling design

While I doubt that sampling cause any of these results, the issue with the sampling questions CRS’s credibility and level of rigor. In the report, CRS attempts to justify why it did not use the most recent national population census which was conducted in 2008. The report states that CRS “planned to use the most recent population data from the national population census, however the most recent population census was conducted in 2008, which is outdated data for the purposes of sampling.

Additionally, the national population census data provided information on population distribution per county, but not down to community level.”

These two factors led them to use the national electoral roll used for the 2011 general elections from the National Elections Commission (NEC) because it provided, “the most comprehensive and in-depth proportional distribution of Liberia’s population across the country. It shows population distribution down to the level of electoral districts and further down to the specific polling stations. Also, it provides maps of the electoral districts and GPS locations of the polling stations.”

Even if I bought the justification, why didn’t CRS use the 2014 Voter Registration Update from the very National Elections Commission (NEC) since that is the latest? The statement that the 2011 data from NEC is the “most comprehensive and in-depth proportional distribution of Liberia’s population across the country” is plain false! 2014 is!

Furthermore, Liberia Institute of Statistics & Geo-Information Services (LISGIS) has a document on its website that projects the new population of the country based on the 2008 census results. The projection is done by County, District, Clan and Households and can be found here: Therefore the claim that the census population distribution was done per county, but not down to community level is also false! Why CRS did not use the new projections leads me to question its motives further.

Lastly, while reading the report, I also discovered that CRS did not provide enough information on how households and respondents within households were selected to participate. The report simply states that “procedures for determining specific households from which interviewees were picked as well as the process for identifying and selecting specific individuals for the interviews were discussed at the data collection training that took place in Gbarnga 10-11 March 2016”. CRS owes it to the public to provide more details regarding this subject.

No data triangulation whatsoever

After separately analyzing both types of data (qualitative and quantitative), it’s often critical to conduct a joint analysis using a triangulation process. However, the report did not mention anything about data triangulation once! Triangulation is a powerful technique that facilitates validation of data through cross verification from two or more sources. In particular, it refers to the application and combination of several research methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Silverman, 1993). 

The triangulation process could have enabled CRS to validate the outcome of the study while offering robust recommendations and strategies to ensure peace in Liberia. The lack of triangulation leads me to think that CRS had a pre-determined mindset regarding the topic.

Lack of clarity on QA process or technical competence of the field researchers

The report states a lot about its methodology, but nothing on quality control and quality assurance of the data collection process. I am unsure if any quality control measures were taken so I have serious questions and reservations about the validity of the data. For example, was the data collection instrument pretested?

Was the process piloted? Were field quality assurance procedures put in place to ensure that correct respondents were sampled in each polling unit? How were they sure that the data was not collected under the mango tree?

When I read that training was conducted from March 10 to March 11 of 2016 and data collection and upload started on March 12th, it led me to conclude that the training process was very poor. I have never…and I mean NEVER seen data collection training for a national study lasting only two days. From the statement in the report, it means that piloting was not done, supervisor training was not done and no time to adjust and retrain the team.

If piloting was done, CRS would not have experienced a situation where “several data clerks lost interviews in the process of uploading”. Note that CRS did not say how many were lost, but simply “several data clerks lost interviews in the process of uploading”.

No focus group discussions conducted whatsoever

The research only conducted key informant interviews (KIIs) as part of the qualitative methods. It would have also been best to conduct focus group discussions (FGDs) to gain other insights into the perceptions of people.

Relying only on KIIs leads to lack of triangulation within the data collected for the study. Based on our experiences, KIIs are typically conducted with an influencer or elite in the community and their opinions often do not represent the community.

Conclusion

Why would an organization such as Catholic Relief Services that should be focused on peace and reconciliation allow for such a botched-up report to be released to cause fear? While the report provides some seemingly good recommendations, there are many other reports within the development community in Liberia with similar recommendations and they managed to achieve similar outcomes without causing fear and they were pretty rigorous studies.

The only conclusion is that CRS had intentions and agenda beyond advancing justice and positive peace in Liberia. The report was also meant to instill fear and undermine the peace in Liberia.

Price Gouging/Minuscule Price Offering

Once again, Liberians, in 2017, will be electing new leaders to shape the country’s destiny. And, of course the voters are frustrated with the state of the country and are hoping that a new leadership will fulfill the promise of financing social programs. Regrettably, unlike many other countries where politicians and supporters do focus on policies such as economic reform, Liberians are focusing on personalities based on what I have read so far. They believe that a change in leadership, for instance, will reduce price gouging and, or reduce low price offering for our natural resources.

Definition: Price gouging is when investors sell goods or services at a price considered to be unfair or exploitative, while minuscule price offering is when investors buy goods and services from, let us assume from a government – below a price and the offered price is considered to be exploitative and unfair.

In Liberia, prices are determined by market forces, however, the Commerce Ministry of Liberia is responsible to “… monitor prices and set price ceilings for certain essential commodities, including petroleum products, rice, cooking oil, cement, etc.,” according to Liberia Country Commercial Guide updated on July 26, 2016. Within North America, states’ laws such as Oregon’s do preserve, and protect the common goods and services during an emergency, and a price cannot exceed15% of the original price…”

To discourage investors such as Liberian Firestone Rubber Plantation from offering exploitative price for countries’ goods and services, many countries have enacted laws, which prohibit investors from offering bribes in exchange for favorable deals.

However, instead of following the laws, Investors, wanting to increase profits, have and continue to offer bribes in exchange of overcharged price and, or offer minuscule. This practice, a form of corruption, is reducing revenue in many countries in Africa as detailed in the African Union Report, which stated that multinational corporations siphon $60 billion yearly out of Africa.

For example, Liberia, one of the countries examined in that Report, continues to face dismal budgetary problems, partly because investors paid low price for its natural resources.

In fact, (68) sixty-eight of the concessionary agreements signed between Liberia and investors are flawed, according to Global Witness. And predictably, the corruption story about the $500,000 bribes paid to Big Boy # 1 and Big Boy # 2 does indicate that investors would have paid a minuscule price to Liberia for its iron ore.

And simultaneously, while these same countries are receiving minuscule prices for their natural resources, they end up paying astronomical amounts to investors for goods and services. For instance, the Liberian government paid contractors $4M for each of the 88 megawatts (i.e., $375M divided by 88 megawatts). The unit cost might increase from $4M to $17M (i.e., $375M divided by 22 Mega Watts) if the contractors do not build the additional 66 megawatts.

Even at $4M per unit, Guinea paid about half ($2.3M) of that amount for its 240 megawatts (i.e., $575M divided by 240 megawatts). Local investors also do overcharge the Liberian government. A landlord, for example, collects $375,000 for an office building, which would end up generating $15M (40 years multiplied by $375,000) for the Monrovia-landlord.

Well folks, price gouging or minuscule price offering is not limited to poor countries. In America, manufacturers have spiked the price of a drug from $40.00 in 2001 to $38,000 today, according to a 138 page Report published by a Congressional Committee headed by U.S. Senator Susan Collins and Senator Claire McCastkill. Another price gouging in the United States that caught the attention of consumers in 2015 was the price of a drug called Daraprim. The price increased by 5,000 percent, from $13.50 to $750.00 overnight.

Since it is difficult to obtain reliable document from Liberia, let us review economic activities in America to help us understand whether reform policy might assist a leader to reduce economic pain. In 2009, Americans, especially white Americans, frustrated over the harsh economic pains, swallowed the bitterness of racism and elected a poor black man to help reduce the cost of living such as the price of healthcare.

And so, President Barack Obama government enacted the “Affordable Care Act to reduce the price of drugs. Instead, as the chart below indicates, manufacturers have spiked the prices of drug in the U.S. The 2013 Comparative Price Report was published by the International Federation of Health Plans.

Overcharging price is not limited to the drug industry. Chief executives are currently overpricing financial products, a practice that was partly responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown. However, unlike America’s 2008 financial debacle, which was perceived as a bump or cyclical economic correction, investors in Liberia have perpetually offered minuscule price for natural resources and at the same time extracted exorbitant price for goods and services sold to Liberia.

So, voters, war-weary, and hoping that a new leader would deter another war, elected an experienced and highly educated candidate, Ms. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Subsequently, she embraced the World Bank as the consultant and recruited high-paid advisers to fight price gouging and to prevent investors from offering minuscule price for Liberia’s natural resources.

Unfortunately, the democratic President, assisted by U.S. $10,000.00 per month salary-advisers and guided by experts of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, did not succeed in preventing investors from exploiting Liberia, according to Global Witness. Why?

Before I share my view on the issue let us review the price of the drug (Gleevec), which is used to treat Leukemia as per the 2013 Chart and the inmates issue in America to understand the impact of an economic system.  It is an economic system that created an environment for investors in the U.S. to charge $8,500 for Gleevec and other investors to charge $3,300 for the same drug in the Netherlands.

Also, no politician, even if bribe is exchanged, will approve a drug price, which jumped from $40 in 2001 to $38,000 today, nor will he/she consent to a price of a drug to increase from $13.50 to $750 overnight.  Now let us look at why the motive of huge profit affects price of goods and services. Decades ago, the Federal government did privatize the housing and the management of inmates in the America.

An investor decided and exploited the opportunity until someone filed a complaint. After participants presented the facts, “…the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2011 overturned about 4,000 convictions issued by Judge Mark Ciavarella, dubbed the ‘Kids-for-cash judge’ after he accepted $1 million in bribes from developers of privatized detention centers and then presided over trials that sent youth to those same centers,” according to Ms. Saskia Sassen in her book called “Expulsion-Brutality and Complexity in the Global Economy.”

I have repeated the views of many experts in different articles that profiteers will always offer bribes in exchange to spike a price of goods and services and, or to offer minuscule price for natural resources when government institute an economic system that allows profiteers to manage and, or own lucrative assets. Certainly, I am aware that leadership’s characters such as honesty, hard work, patriotism, etc. can help to reduce exploitative price, especially the rising cost of housing in Monrovia.

Yet characters alone cannot adequately and effectively address the complexity and intricacies of the flow of unfair price offering and exorbitant price. For example, President William R. Tolbert and President William Tubman had different leadership characters, yet, investors, during the two separate regimes, did offer low price for Liberia’s natural resources and did coerce Liberia to pay astronomical prices for goods and services. Why so? The economic system was the same.

Regrettably, Liberia will continue to experience the exploitative prices because profiteers control the lucrative sector of our economic. Liberia would demand and receive better price if it became economically powerful by adding value to the country’s natural resources. But investors will not add value since that approach might reduce the profits of the related parties.

So, it is only the government that could add value, but that requires an increase of the role of our government. Therefore, as long as profiteers remain economically powerful at the expense of the government, they will use their position of influence to assist other profiteers or related parties to demand astronomical price for goods and services

Taa Wongbe, Contributing Writer