We respond to a letter published in the Stabroek News of March, 30, written by Region 2 rice farmer, Heeralall Mohan (‘These drying floors will not really help Region Two rice farmers and need to be investigated’), and an article in the same newspaper of April 5, written by Sara Bharrat (‘Drying floors not needed now, too pricy – farmer, ex-PPP MP’).
It is with great reluctance that we at the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB) and the Rice Producers’ Association (RPA), have decided to respond to the said missive in an effort to set the record straight. Mr Mohan is most aware of all the interventions over the years to assist the rice industry to survive, recover and grow. It is a sector which we feel will continue to play a very critical role in the development of our country, especially since world food projections show an increased demand for basics such as rice.
We are, however, very disappointed that the government assistance programme for rice farmers is being ridiculed by an individual who could have utilised his time to do something to benefit the rice industry. But, maybe, Mr Mohan has his own agenda which has caused him to stoop to a new low. His criticisms are unfounded and furthest from the truth.
When President Bharrat Jagdeo announced government’s $400M initial assistance for the rice industry as part of the menu of measures to assist in mitigating the effects of several factors, including the reduced international market prices that negatively affect the Guyana rice industry, perhaps Mr Mohan was fast asleep and did not hear the instruction by the President for all stakeholders to be consulted on the effective utilisation of the said fund. Perhaps Mr Mohan was also in a deep slumber when all stakeholders in the rice industry (farmers, millers and input suppliers, among others) were consulted during a series of outreaches which touched every rice-farming community.
There was total unanimity among all the stakeholders on the projects on which the intervention fund would be best utilised. These stakeholders, profusely supportive of government’s assistance, recommended the construction of drying floors and the provision of a subsidy for fertilisers and pesticides to the entire industry as the two best ways to use the said fund. Several of these very meetings were held in Region 2 where Mr Mohan resides and farms, but perhaps because he suffered a memory lapse, he cannot recall such meetings.
We wish to state clearly, pellucidly so, that the construction of the drying floors was never intended to completely eliminate the drying capacity that currently exists in the rice industry. Rather, all stakeholders (perhaps excluding Mr Mohan), saw it as supplementary and complementary to the existing drying capacity and a way through which it could assist in minimizing one of the many constraints that rice farmers face. For all stakeholders (again, perhaps excluding Mr Mohan), this is a move in the right direction and one which has the potential for expansion in the very near future. It is indeed regrettable that Mr Mohan lacks the vision to plan for the future, as any good farmer would, and especially in such globally-turbulent economic times when commodity prices, including those for rice, sometimes become unpredictable. Mr Mohan seems not to remember the difficulties of drying paddy on the roadways of the Essequibo Coast.
Regarding the implementation of this intervention programme, there is deep collaboration between the GRDB and RPA. The said programme is being implemented utilising the most stringent terms and this includes the evaluation of bids and the awarding of contracts. For this programme, the selective tendering process was used in order to speed up its implementation and to have these drying floors available for farmers’ use for the current rice crop. In addition, contractors who have the capacity and proven past experience were selected to build these drying floors.
The prudence with which our two organisations have collaborated in the past on other projects has allowed us to promptly recognise deficiencies with contractors. Our close monitoring of the current drying-floor project has resulted in us detecting some problems with the contractors during the early phase of this programme, which resulted in the unnecessary delay in completion of a few of the floors, but not until after these deficiencies were addressed to our full satisfaction.
For Mr Mohan’s information, the entire process of tender invitation to tender selection was most transparent, and a total of 33 bids were received from 14 contractors for the construction of these drying floors in the five rice-growing regions. All the bids were evaluated by a Special Evaluation Committee which consists of technically-qualified persons from both of our organisations and central government.
The design of these floors is being done by highly qualified and experienced engineers, and the actual construction is being closely monitored to ensure full compliance with the specifications in the contracts.
The prudence with which the financial and technical aspects of this collective project was managed has since resulted in an accumulation of savings which will be used to construct an additional drying floor that was not included in the initial programme.
Had the construction of the floors been deferred or delayed, the likes of Mr Mohan might have been singing another song of condemnation against the government, and more particularly our agencies.
The GRDB and RPA would like to inform Mr Mohan that his allegations of the use of “cheap chicken mesh and crusher run” to construct these floors are totally untrue and misleading, and may be indicative of a person bereft of even a basic knowledge of engineering.
The selection of the sites for the construction of the floors was never without its intrigues. Some farmers and others, suddenly ‘philanthropic,’ decided, individually, to donate and in some cases, sell their lands on which these floors must be constructed. A prime conditionality which they attached is that the contract for the construction should be awarded to them or named individuals selected by them. Can we blame the farmers who saw this as an opportunity to cash in? No, we can’t! However, good sense and judgement had to prevail. We strongly objected to such requests and the Minister of Agriculture advised that all the drying floors must be constructed on state lands in order to ensure transparency in the process and without any strings attached. In Region 2, the three floors are located on lands made available through the Regional Office and we are grateful to that body for its assistance.
Editor, kindly allow us this opportunity to also point out to Mr Mohan and perhaps others, that Region 2 farmers are benefiting from approximately 25% of government’s $400M intervention to the entire rice sector located in five regions. Like their counterparts in the other rice-growing regions, farmers on the Essequibo Coast have also received fertilizer vouchers in addition to the three drying floors. All the farmers have expressed their greatest satisfaction with the help provided them by central government.
It is obvious that the impact of this significant sum is already being seen across the rice belt, and despite El Nino, those farmers who are reaping their paddy crop have been reporting excellent yields and improved quality. It is a pity that the persistence and intensity of this weather phenomenon have affected the rice and other sectors of our economy, despite all the interventions piloted by our government, albeit with limited resources at our disposal. Guyana is not alone in this natural occurrence as the economies of many countries across the world and as far away as Asia have also been dented.
Despite the negative thinking and probable inimical action of a few, we would like to encourage farmers to use these floors and regret that we could not have constructed additional floors in Region 2, as requested by farmers to adequately meet their needs, because of a limited budget.
Nevertheless, the GRDB and RPA are working assiduously with the Ministry of Agriculture to expand this programme to ensure that we continue to meet the needs of our hard-working rice farmers, including Mr Mohan.
He needs to look at the positive side of this intervention and make constructive criticisms in the future. After all, he has a right to criticize and this is guaranteed him under our constitution. But when such criticisms fall short of being sensible, it speaks volumes of the person criticizing.
Regarding the other aspects of Mr Mohan’s letter we consider these frivolous, far from dignified and not germane enough to warrant our reaction. Unlike the letter writer, we have to constructively utilize our time to ensure the growth of the rice sector on which so many hard working farmers depend. We have to stay the course and not allow ourselves to deviate.
In closing, Editor, we would like to say this: A good rice farmer is one who sensibly spends his earnings so that he is not strapped for cash. Our farmers, perhaps with a few exceptions, spend their earnings wisely. Most of our farmers are good farmers, and we would like to give our respect to them for the work they have been doing.
Jagnarine Singh, BSc, MSc
General Manager GRDB
M Ramraj, BA, MBA
Deputy General Manager GRDB
Ricky Roopchand,BSc
Project Officer RPA
