Distress in agriculture

THE REPORT of a 10-year low in agricultural production during the second quarter of this year is bad news for an economy already under prolonged stress. Although, as stated, severe drought conditions must have played a significant role, it is disturbing to note that sugar, a crop not unduly affected by this factor, contributed markedly to the decline. According to the report in the category 'domestic crops' production was down nearly 29 per cent, which naturally, as stated, led to an increase of some 30 per cent in farmgate prices. This steep rise, we think, poses two threats: In the first place it contributes to inflation and in the second place it makes local producers more vulnerable to market penetration from cheaper, often subsidised foreign imports. As far as export crops such as sugar and banana are concerned the performance, or lack of it, exposes the danger of continuing to rely on them as pillars of the agricultural export sector. It is rather unreasonable for us to continue to coax, cajole and beg for continued special treatment in the market when we are unable to take advantage of the opportunities such pleading presents. It seems to us that in the light of such vulnerability the time is past due to introduce considerably greater planning and foresight in the agricultural base. We do not think that the 21st century will be kind to us if we remain rooted in a system that barely survived the 20th. Old habits, old shibboleths and outdated practices must give way to the new age realities if the distressing statistics in the latest report are to be improved.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.

Back to Commentary