Agro parks under microscope

Marlon Morgan, Guest Columnist

Agriculture is that quintessential intersect between business and applied science. On the business side, those involved in the activity concern themselves with the viability of the commodities they produce, securing maximum returns on their investment, increasing operational efficiency, and reducing losses - be that as a result of crop failure, market glut or praedial larceny.

On the applied science side, which is where the future of the sector lies, considerable effort is dedicated to finding ways to maximise yield (e.g., application of fertilisers and the incorporation of tissue culture), ward off pests, develop genes that are resistant to certain foreign agents, and using technology generally to revolutionise centuries-old practices in keeping with 21st-century realities.

A sector that is so well placed to generate employment in droves and incorporate considerable volumes of low-skilled labour must be positioned as one of the most viable prospects in the growth strategy. There is no clearer reinforcement of this reality than the Government's letter of intent to the IMF, which identifies agriculture and the widely embraced agro-park initiative as key growth prospects. Needless to say, the overall success of the IMF programme rests heavily on the success of the agro parks.

Against the backdrop of underperforming government revenue, abysmal levels of confidence among businesses and consumers alike, and the unrelenting hardships being visited upon the people by way of Government's pursuit of fiscal austerity without a commensurate focus on growth, the importance of agro parks cannot be overemphasised.

The programme was conceptualised by the previous administration and was seen as a long-overdue way of repositioning the agriculture sector and ramping up domestic production. An agro park, as we envisaged it, would serve to bring greater structure

and organisation to the production process. Farmers would operate in a more structured environment, benefit from economies of scale, have access to key infrastructure, equipment and technical advice, and not have to worry too much about praedial larceny and an inability to find market.

With the devastation suffered by farmers at the Plantain Garden River (PGR) agro park coming to national attention recently, the Opposition considered a tour of the facility a priority. What we observed on the tour made it clear to us that activities at PGR got under way without the requisite due diligence and preparatory work, including infrastructure build-out, which should have been carried out.

For starters, the road leading to the agro park
is absolutely embarrassing. An on-the-ball minister would, for example,
have sought to use resources from the Sugar Transformation Fund to
repair the road and ensure that it is in a condition befitting the
importance and magnitude of the project.

An overall
lack of coordination and technical support was palpable. With banana,
plantain, sugar cane and rice being the most suitable crops for the soil
type out that side, based on the advice I have received, one must
question the degree of due diligence that went into the decision to roll
out an onion production
project.

Complained

With efforts
only now being concentrated on engaging and assigning a range of experts
and consultants to the project, it is evident that the project
commenced without the requisite levels of technical
guidance.

In fact, the farmers complained that persons
who ostensibly were experts gave them conflicting and confusing advice.
While some advised that overhead irrigation could work for the onion
crop, others contended that drip irrigation was most suitable. As it
turned out, overhead irrigation was used and was very late in coming
(three months after sowing), whereas drip irrigation should have been
used.

The farmers shared with us the difficulties many
of them faced in finding the $30,000 deposit that was required to
secure the $300,000 loan. With a number of recent school leavers
participating in the project, and with many of them having very little
monetary resources to satisfy the deposit requirement, we were informed
of the extraordinary sacrifices they made in order to come up with the
money. Some went as far as to sell their cell phones and household
appliances.

To suggest that they are irked by the
failure of the crop and the significant debt with which they are now
saddled is an understatement of mammoth proportions. They have derived
no benefit from months of toil and can speak of no returns on the
investment they made. In spite of the setbacks, the farmers are showing
tremendous courage, as they have proceeded to cultivate other cash crops
after the failed onion crop in a bid to get back on their feet
quickly.

Glaring errors

One cannot
escape asking oneself: How on earth could the Simpson Miller
administration have presided over a project of such importance to
national growth and development and make so many glaring
errors?

As a solutions-oriented Opposition, we will
remain strident in making representation on behalf of the farmers. Some
probing questions have already been tabled in Parliament and will be
followed by advocacy aimed at getting the Government to: write off the
$300,000 debt each farmer owes, provide greater levels of support and
assistance in the ongoing restoration efforts, engage in the build-out
of key infrastructure, make competent experts available, assign a
tractor to the PGR agro park, fast-track the disbursement of relief
funds, and ensure that there is market for their produce at the end of
the day. These were specific requests made by the farmers, and we think
they are quite reasonable.

Marlon Morgan is junior
opposition spokesman on agriculture. Email feedback to
columns@gleanerjm.com and
marlonandremorgan@gmail.com.