Talking about cassava

Editor: In recent months we have been a plethora of talks/ consultations on matters of national interest.

I welcome the discussion on cassava production, which was started recently at the NIS building and at which some experts from regional bodies made presentations. Cassava comes under the umbrella of Agriculture, which is one of the very important subjects on which we should have been for several months now having serious national conversations as we contemplate the digging of ourselves out of the malaise and economic stagnancy in which we now find ourselves.

We here in SVG have been planting cassava for probably more than 150 years and it has been a very important item in our diet. So, when the Government became actively involved in the production of cassava, one had expected that farine and cassava starch would have been more affordable for everybody. It is felt that that Government project may not have served the interests of the people from several standpoints.

I myself was very disappointed that there were not several tons of cassava tubers ready for processing when the grand opening of the factory was done. We had evidently not done proper planning for the commissioning of the factory. It reflected very badly on the maturity of the Ministry of Agriculture! The farmers have already demonstrated that they can produce the crops successfully, but any new effort must be intelligently executed. With the necessary funding mechanism in place, we should not fail.

I must use this forum to express my disappointment with the indifference to the welfare of the farming community of St Vincent and the Grenadines, exhibited by organizations of long standing and prominence, whom we had grown to believe had our best interests at heart and whose opinions we trusted. Yet, they seemed to have abandoned us when we needed their support and advocacy.

I am referring to the renowned Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Caribbean Research and Development Institute (CARDI), the Inter American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA). When the ECCB proposed a plan to stimulate the economy of SVG and the OECS, they excluded Agriculture from that plan, but we heard nothing from the organizations referred to above.

Did they not consider that to be a matter on which there should have been some input from them? I think so and I am reinforced in this opinion, when I consider statements made in an IICA document 2010-2020 STRATEGIC PLAN, published in October 2010. It reads “WHAT IS IICA? – We are the specialized agency of the Inter-American System for the promotion of agriculture and rural well being, and our efforts are fully focused on making agriculture competitive and sustainable in the Americas.”

The last paragraph at the bottom of that same page states:

“In our 34 MEMBER STATES we work very closely with the Ministries of Agriculture. Our governing body is the Inter-American Board of Agriculture (IABA) comprising the ministries of agriculture of the hemisphere. In addition, we serve as the secretariat of the Meeting of Ministries of Agriculture in the context of the Summit of the Americas Process.” Considering the foregoing quote from the IICA document, the question that haunts me is, “Did our problems with Black Sigatoka come to the attention of IABA and were they discussed at any of the meetings of Ministries of Agriculture between November 2009 and November 2010? If so, what was decided?

Another paragraph from the IICA document states, “The countries of the hemisphere, individually and working together, must find a way to make agriculture more competitive and sustainable, and capable of overcoming obstacles and taking advantage of opportunities that have emerged in the global agriculture products market, improving the well-being of the rural population, conserving natural resources, and contributing to the promotion of efforts to achieve food security.

Yet, Sir Dwight Venner, one of the prominent players in the construction of that Eight-Point Stabilization and Growth Plan of 2008, 2009, dismissed our food security interests. He advised that we could buy food cheaper from outside of the region if the community purchased together. It must not be forgotten, that the sectors targeted under the plan experienced negative growth in the succeeding years.

I am, therefore, contending that we need to have a comprehensive evaluation of that plan and its execution, so as to determine the reasons for its failure. No attempt should be made to devise a new plan until that has been done.

The farming community feels strongly that had the necessary support been given to the sector over the last 20 years or so, the economy of our land would have been much stronger; we are all feeling the pressure.

LeRoy Providence