FOOD OR FUEL

Apr 18, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – In 2009, there was a pushback against plans, by then President Bharrat Jagdeo, to use agricultural lands for the cultivation of crops for biofuels. At the time, the world was reeling from the triple effects of the global financial crisis, the global food crisis and a global fuel crisis.
Guyana responded to the fuel crisis with plans to produce agri-fuels. It went as far as developing an agri-energy policy. The then government’s plans included the development of small-scale ethanol utilising either sugar cane juice or molasses, at Albion; setting aside lands in Canje for bio-energy feedstock; the production of biodiesel from palm oil; and the conversion of biomass waste into energy.
Guyana did eventually generate energy from bagasse. But despite the vast amount of bagasse – a by-product of sugar – this initiative aimed at the industrial production of energy flopped.
Food has long been produced for industrial uses. Cotton has been grown for use in the manufacturing of textiles. Tobacco is still used in the production of cigarettes. Other industrial products produced from crops include rubber, medicines, palm oil, fibres and dyes.
Despite this history of industrial crop cultivation there was a pushback against plans for converting food crops into bio-fuels. Among those leading the charge was Fidel Castro. He published a reflection in the Granma newspaper in which he called attention to the plight of the more than two billion persons in the world who suffer from hunger. The cultivation of crops for biofuels, he argued, would utilise lands which would be better put towards producing food to feed the people of the world.
He quoted from sources which pointed to biofuels further fuelling increases in food prices. Castro argued that use of land to produce biofuels will reduce the acreages for the production of other crops and will result in an increase in food prices which will be passed on to consumers.
Industrial crop production is now once again on the national agenda. The Irfaan Ali government has outlined plans to utilise lands, including sugar lands, for the production of industrial hemp.
Guyana has extensive lands. But not all of these are properly drained and irrigated. As such, the plan to put the properly irrigated and drained sugar lands into industrial hemp production is highly controversial.
It also contradicts the emphasis which the President is placing on food production because the industrial uses to which the hemp will be put will not be used as food. Why then instead of planting hemp using sugar lands, does the government not use the said lands for the production of the items which the Caribbean Community has identified as substitutes for extra-regional imports.
Hemp production requires good irrigation. It is for this reason, no doubt, that the investors – who are no doubt working behind the scenes – are eyeing up the sugar lands.
In order for hemp production to be competitive, the fields will most likely be designed for machine harvesting. As such, cane harvesters should not get excited about finding employment.
Machine harvesting will also be necessary to ensure higher yields, something that is essential to the profitability of hemp production. As such, the industry is likely to be developed as a capital-intensive industry. This will erase the employment prospects for sugar workers.
Private investors will have to be attracted. And while it is believed that there are some major investors already lined up, the investment costs are expected to be high. As such, it is likely that the government will have to subsidise production in the form of extra-generous concessions relating to land and tax holidays – which would cancel out the crop’s real benefits to the economy.
Hemp investment carries risks. There have been cases in the United States where cultivation has proven unprofitable. A recent report in Texas pointed to the fact that hemp production was generally not profitable.
Guyana is embarking on hemp production at the worst possible time. Marketing is thus a major concern. At present, there is a glut in hemp production. One survey found that more than six out of every 10 cultivators were engaged in production without an assured buyer.
But why should lands which can and should be devoted to pushing Irfaan Ali’s food security drive be diverted into the production of industrial hemp? And why should sugar lands, humanised by generations and fertilised with the blood, sweat and tears of Guyanese, be put at the disposal of private investors?
If hemp is as profitable as the government feels, why does the government not make the investment in lieu of the billions that it is using to prop up the sugar industry each year?
Hemp production may well end up like Jagdeo’s much touted plans for agri-fuels: another of his grand failures. If the Guyana government is serious about helping displaced cane cutters, it should divide abandoned sugar lands into manageable plots, for food production, rather than handing these lands to private hemp investors.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---