Business or politics? Smart farmers know

Aug 12, 2009 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
Please allow me a response to an article in yesterday’s issue (Tuesday 11 Aug) of the Stabroek News. It is carried under ‘Tuesday’s Economic Corner‘ by Peter R. Ramsaroop and is headed “Agriculture gone bad – farmers suffer.” It contains a series of falsehoods and allegations about the MMA that need to be addressed.
As to whether the article is really about business I am not sure; for it appears to me more as politics instead.  If my response therefore seems to straddle both contexts, as it might, then I can only wonder why the ‘independent’ Stabroek News could not have done better than have opposition politicians write such articles and present them as economic columns. Or is this by design?
That said, I will confine my attention to those aspects of the article that touch and concern me and the MMA.
For the benefit of Mr Ramsaroop, the MMA has an open door policy when it comes to our work, particularly as it relates to the provision of services for our farmers. Irrespective of which or whose ‘hat he wears’, Ramsaroop could have checked with us, and even brought along with him the farmer(s) that he claimed were experiencing problems with us. Perhaps he didn’t know, or may be didn’t want to.
Since he did not check with us and before I address any of the specifics in his article, let me briefly outline our D&I work in the West Berbice area of MMA, about which he has written.
The area falls within the ‘MMA Project Area’ from the Abary to the Berbice River. The D&I infrastructure serving the area is categorised as Primary, Secondary and Tertiary. The Primary system consists of the conservancy, the main canals and drains (approx 110 miles) primary accesses, and the primary structures like the sea sluices and the seven-door sluice.
The secondary system consists of the secondary canals and drains (approx 430 miles) the secondary accesses (approx 450 miles) and structures like the canal regulators, culverts, bridges etc.
The tertiary systems relate to on-farm and residential areas and belong to the farmers and the NDCs.
It is the extensive secondary system which serves the farmers more directly and presents most of the challenges for us.
During the 1980s and 1990s, MMA was responsible for maintenance of both the primary and secondary systems. D&I rates were fixed at $3550.00/acre/annum (two crops). By 1999, mostly because of the non-payment of the D&I rates among other factors, the Authority was faced with bankruptcy. Government then decided that upon the farmers’ request, they be given full control of the secondary systems and the rates reduced to cover the upkeep of the primary system by the MMA. The rates were cut to $1673.00/acre/annum (two crops)
Unfortunately there was no cooperation among the farmers, and the system deteriorated badly.
In addition they were not even paying for the upkeep of the Primary system, but with Government’s support, MMA was able to keep the primary works in excellent shape.
By 2007, the Minister of Agriculture intervened, and after much consultation with the farmers, MMA resumed responsibility for the secondary systems from January 2008. A massive rehabilitation programme began, starting with the drains. As each one was completed, it was put on maintenance.
In eight days’ time we will complete the last of the drains and commence on the irrigation canals. We encourage the farmers to take on the maintenance contracts which have publicly fixed rates, and no maintenance contractor is paid now unless the inspection certificate is signed by the farmers’ reps that they have appointed.
Yes, we expect them to pay their D&I charges, which is now $2500./acre/annum. (For both primary and secondary charges; the rough equivalent of 1 bag paddy per acre per year; half bag per crop).
I dare Ramsaroop or anyone else to contradict the above.
As for the article proper, I am inclined to excuse Ramsaroop’s portrayed ignorance of matters agriculture, or even perhaps him being misled. What worries me however is that he would choose to write without checking the facts.
Can this gentleman tell us exactly where in West Berbice there are the drainage problems about which he wrote? On the contrary, some of our farmers are currently experiencing some problems with field irrigation. We do however have adequate supplies in the Primary system which we have even primed above full-supply level, so that farmers may assist themselves until we complete work on the secondary irrigation channels.
Does he want us to operate the drainage pump, or did he intend to imply that the pump is not operable? Whenever we have cause to use the pump, I will let the manager give him a call.
I know of no MMA ‘Official’ who has a rice farm as is implied in the article. Not me, not the General Manager, nor any of the other managers.
As to the issue of re-possession and re-allocation which is the real basis for attacking me and MMA, we have on previous occasions dealt extensively with this matter. These allegations are nothing new.
I do not wish to go it over, except to say that in the process of treating with thousands of cases, we have had cause to exercise such sanction in less than a dozen instances, and, if anyone from who land was re-possessed wants his case made public, then we will do so.
As to the personal attack on me I am not bothered for I am aware of its vindictive origin.
Suffice it to say that since my assumption at MMA I have tried to ensure equitable treatment of all our farmers, irrespective of race, political affiliation or any other consideration whatever, and I have demanded no less from my staff.
Mr Ramsaroop you would still be welcome to visit us, and meet our smart farmers.
Rudolph Gajraj
Chairman MMA

---

---