Dear Editor,
After reviewing yet another editorial published in the March 28th, 2021 edition of the Sunday Stabroek, on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, I would like to make some things clear.
It is obvious that the editorial writer is of the assumption that the Chinese-owned seafood processing plant’s operations will somehow negatively affect the overall seabob industry. That will not be the case and here’s why.
Grandeast Inc.’s operations have nothing to do with the issuance of the two new trawler licences.
Grandeast Inc. is currently only processing one specific species of shrimp – Nematopalaemon schmitti also known as the ‘white belly’ shrimp. The company is not involved in the processing of other types of seafood at this time.
Grandeast Inc. is providing a market for a product that is usually discarded or dried in somewhat unsanitary conditions in Guyana. The species in question, because of its size, takes a very long time to shell manually so local fisherfolk would usually discard them.
Grandeast Inc. has also increased the income of its suppliers by increasing the cost per bucket of ‘white belly’ shrimp from $500 and $800 per bucket to $1000 per bucket.
Grandeast Inc. has the capacity to process 40 tons of shrimp per day. This does not mean that they do, as the company is currently engaging other fisherfolk to supply the desired species of shrimp.
Grandeast Inc. was granted a licence to operate under the previous APNU+AFC Administration. After reviewing the company’s file, it was discovered that it had been granted permission from the responsible agencies from as far back as August of 2019. After permission was granted and the facility was built, the Fisheries Department granted permission to operate to Grandeast Inc. on February 11th, 2020. Why didn’t the Ministry come under fire then?
Another important point that the editorial completely missed, or maybe willfully dismissed, is the fact that the new processing facility is dedicated to aquaculture and its development in Guyana as against wild-caught fish as was explained to the Minister and team on the visit.
The new plant was also designed to process fish species that are grown in cultured/controlled environments, and as such, the operators have signaled their interest to purchase fish species such as tilapia amongst others.
One must wonder why the sudden interest in perpetuating corruption at the Ministry of Agriculture when the entire process was approved even before the 2020 National and Regional Elections which, after a six-month-long debacle, resulted in a change in Government.
The Ministry of Agriculture has put forward every effort to bring clarity to the issue surrounding the issuance of the trawler licences. It has now become irresponsible for the Editorial writer in question to issue statements based on assumptions rather than facts.
Statements “such may be the case” and “one has to wonder” are assumptive and not factual. The editorial is drawing a non-statistical conclusion and if we are going to continue along the lines of assumptions, it can be assumed that the Editorial writer has a clear agenda. It can also be assumed that the newspaper would like to see the fishermen who are now benefiting from this market lose out on these financial gains they are now receiving. Would the Editorial writer be able to make up for the loss in income that these fisherfolk would have to incur if this market is lost?
At the Ministry of Agriculture, one of our aims is to foster development of the fishing industry. Government has made it clear that Guyana is opened to foreign direct investments and has been partners with many countries for decades, China included. These investments must benefit our citizens and this is a clear example of such.
We’d like to invite the editor to engage in responsible journalism and try to contact Grandeast Inc.’s management team in Guyana to get the facts, rather than publish statements padded with assumptions.
Yours sincerely,
Janell Cameron
Public Relations Officer,
Ministry of Agriculture
Editor-in-Chief’s note: The clarifications provided on Grandeast’s operations are welcome. However, there is a noticeable lack of information on if account has been taken by the ministry and regulatory authorities of whether harvesting of the `white belly’ shrimp at the maximum rate could endanger population sustainability. Furthermore, full information should be provided on what phases two and three of Grandeast’s operations might entail.
There had been no information under the previous government that Grandeast had been granted a licence. Surely, however, both this government and the previous one should have engaged in discussions with stakeholders to determine whether there were good grounds to grant a licence for a fish processing plant.
As it relates to the contention that the editorial should have been aware that the new processing facility is “dedicated to aquaculture” as opposed to wild-caught fishing it is unclear how Ms Cameron expected the newspaper to be aware of this when her press release of March 22nd , which formed the basis of the news item carried by this newspaper, did not once mention the word “aquaculture” or for that matter “wild-caught”.
While the Ministry has indeed made efforts to “bring clarity” to the issuing of the two trawler licences it has failed the test. The trawler licences were issued secretly and without public notification – conditions ripe for corrupt behaviour. The Ministry must explain in detail the process by which the licences were handed out and the credentials of the holder.
This newspaper has tried to contact Grandeast to no avail but will continue its efforts.
