Ignorance of developments within the rice industry

Oct 22, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The letter in Kaieteur news issue of October 20, 2009 has allowed Mr. Jinnah Rahaman to once again exhibit his ignorance of developments within the rice industry.
I would like to start by addressing the content of the letter and then attempt to edify Mr. Rahaman of the changes that has taken place in the rice industry whilst he was languishing in foreign lands.
The rice sector of Guyana has many challenges indeed, but efforts at both the national and sectoral levels are being vigorously pursued to increase industry efficiency and enhance its competitiveness. Therefore I agree with him and the President of the RPA that enough is not done in the marketing of Guyana’s rice at the time when our preferences to the once protective market is being eroded.
But he need to note that since the divestment of state owned rice mills, Government role in the marketing of rice was reduced and was confined to the facilitation and document preparation. Marketing was done by the Private Sector and because of their failure Government will have to fill the void.
Secondly, the meeting last crop with the Commercial Attaché of the Venezuelan Embassy in Guyana was organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs after a request by the Minister of Agriculture. The scheduling of this meeting was done at short notice and after calling some of the millers/exporters Mr. Doerga was the one in close proximity and attend on their behalf of the exporter.
At that time, Mr. Rahaman was not yet executing his mischievous agenda. The meeting was attended by the following: Dr. Dindyal Permaul, Permanaent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Mr. Nigel Dharamlall, Chairman GRDB, myself (Jagnarine Singh), representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Mr. Doerga.
On the issue of the purchase of the Laser Land Leveller, this is an area where Government, GRDB and its partners will continue in its unstinting efforts to address the area where proper management, strategic intervention, and efficient husbandry can reduce losses and enhance profitability. The more I read into the letter of Mr. Rahaman, the more I am aware that he is ignorant of the basics of rice cultivation and production.
Mr. Rahaman, ask any farmer what are the benefits of a level field, they will list a volume. I wish to list a few for your edification: water use and fertilizer efficiency is enhanced, weed control is improved, establishment of a more uniform plant stand, etc. This ultimately will increase the yields and returns to the farmer. I would like to inform him that after the demonstration at the Burma Rice Research Station, farmers were requesting that Government purchase one for each rice region. This is another strategic intervention to complement all the others in areas of enhanced research capabilities, reduced yield gap, vertical and horizontal diversification, institutional strengthening, infrastructural enhancement in drying and storage, port development and continued and improved D&I services.
A point to note is that this year rice production will be the highest in Guyana’s history. Isn’t this a sign of much progress and the results of strategic planning and action? While the detractors and mischief makers are using the media to execute their agenda, the farmers and millers are busy proving them wrong.
I wish not comment about the current court matter to which Mr. Rahaman alluded because one should know that discussing a matter that is engaging the Honourable Court is sub judice. But here again ignorance must have overcome sanity and commonsense.
This part will help Mr. Rahaman to “catch-up” on developments of the rice industry when he was enjoying “life in London”.
Guyana Rice Board (GRB) was the sole entity responsible for the marketing of rice in the seventies up to the mid eighties. They had all the large mills in Guyana and production of the numerous small rice mills had to be turned over to these entities for sale. This was considered the dark days for rice farmers, where the inspectors of GRDB were called “rice police”. GRB was responsible for supply inputs, and as reported by the farmers, negotiations with the officials of GRB were best done by female members of their families.
As a farmer you need a special permit to have more that a bag of rice at your home, and when it was customary that the small rice farmers will “toll mill” their paddy and keep enough rice for their family until the next crop. There was one case when a rice miller, Hakim, took some time to open the gate of his mill and one of the “rice police” fire a shot into the mill, hitting one of his sons. The Hakim’s family thereafter obtained Political Asylum in Canada.
In 1985, in an effort to give jobs to it members, the PNC dissolve GRB and replace it with three entities; National and Padi Grading Centre (NPRGC), Guyana Rice Marketing and Milling Authority (GRMMA) and Guyana Rice Export Board (GREB). GREB was responsible for the marketing of Guyana rice with the General Manager of this entity making frequent trips overseas, selling Guyana rice. The effectiveness of this can be measured with export sales for the six-year period 1985-1991 averaging 47,400 tonnes, the lowest annual amounts being 29,339 tonnes and the highest being 68,897 tonnes.
After the colossal failure of these interventions and the Government adoption the Structural Adjustment Programme, the state-owned rice mills were divested and the services of the rice industry were left for the Private Sector to fill.
After the new Government was installed in 1992, rice was one again in its rightful place with Government immediately addressing the limitation in the production sector. Massive amounts were spent rehabilitating the drainage and irrigation infrastructure that was abandoned by the previous administration.
Government also embark on a consultative process of the merging of the remnants of the three rice entities and this is now history with the formation of the now Guyana Rice Development Board. The stakeholders were quick to raise their objections to the establishment of an entity similar to the old GRB, as they did not want a repeat of the dark days.
GRDB role were regulatory and provision of support services. Support service in the areas of technology transfer, varietal development, quality management, market facilitation and legal representation for rice farmers. Regulatory in the areas of manufacturing and exports of rice. Marketing were done by the private sector and as the stakeholders were enjoying “good” returns to their investment, the need for more Government involvement was not welcomed.
Today with some issues to be addressed, we have seen many so-called messiahs emerging from the cracks. Where were these people when the dogs were turned on protesting rice farmers? When they were imprisoned for speaking about their rights and demanding their rights? When a special permit was compulsory to have more than a bag of rice at our homes to celebrate any festivity or even to feed the family? When female members of our families were preyed upon by rice officials and other government officials because we needed Government’s help and service over which they preside like Colossus.
Mr. Rahaman and all the other detractors, we at GRDB have an open door policy and are willing to accept any constructive ideas that can help to enhance the development of the sector. I would advise them to come and see copies of the programme that the GRDB is executing, some are; the Rice Sector Strategic Plan, EU feasibility study, Rice Competitiveness Project, etc. We are anxiously awaiting your contributions.
Jagnarine Singh BSc, MSc General Manager, GRDB

---

---