The Banana Cycle – Part 2

I left off last week by outlining some of the major challenges confronting banana farmers and their organisations in the new, farmer-unfriendly environment. Chief among these was the degree to which farmers could manage their own affairs, given that for almost half a century previously, that responsibility had either been badly mismanaged or left to state institutions, which did not do a good job generally.{{more}}

Banana Growers Associations had been established in the context of ensuring democracy in the administration of the banana business, but the practice fell far short of the noble aspirations. More and more, in all the islands, crucial decision-making was left in the hands of a few, some elected and others exerting significant influence by virtue of the scale of their production. The Annual General Assemblies were exercises in influence-peddling, mirroring what happened in the wider society at election time, with provision made for the letting off of a lot of hot air.

But those were the days of the rapid expansion of the industry, the heyday of ‘green-gold’, so who cared about capacity-building, enabling farmers to understand their industry, to keep pace with changing market requirements, or ensuring there was fiscal responsibility and accountability? The important thing was that the dollar was flowing because the market was assured.

You could get away with this in times of plenty, but as the nineties ushered in the external challenges, the local and regional status quo could not withstand the gathering storms or sustain the industry. The more the difficulties mounted, the greater the strain on the administration of the business, and given the critical mass of the banana industry, the more the state was called upon to support and intervene.

By the turn of the century even this level of state intervention was insufficient to quell discontent among farmers. A revolt in St Lucia forced the privatisation of the industry there and fuelled demands for greater farmer control in Dominica and St Vincent. These served as the backdrop to a regional initiative, through the Windward Islands’ Farmers Association (WINFA) for a farmer takeover of the industry and new marketing arrangements under the Fairtrade label.

Critical to the success of this new venture was the development of the capacity of farmers to manage the industry of which they had assumed control. WINFA was fully cognisant of this and initiated programmes for developing the management and organisational skills of farmers. It went as far as collaborating with the University of the West Indies (UWI) in training programmes that stretched right up to leadership level, including such certificated programmes as Negotiating Skills, to prepare farmers for the new marketplace realities.

This paid dividends in part in producing some new leaders, male and female alike, who became pivots of the 21st century industry. But, by and large, the old habits prevailed, the dependency syndrome persisted and the anti-commercial “sorry for poor” outlook, ignoring the demands of the market and the urgency to introduce new approaches. These were to lead to major weaknesses in leadership and administration and to an undermining of the efficiency and effectiveness of the farmer-controlled experiment.

That, in a nutshell, is a major contributing factor to the crisis currently facing the industry, particularly in St Vincent and the Grenadines, as we shall next see in the third and concluding part of this presentation.

Renwick Rose is a community activist

and social com- mentator.