Last week I concluded with the suggestion that any analysis of the way forward for agriculture in Barbados would need to address the traditional economic factors of land, labour, capital and, in this particular instance, praedial larceny. This week an attempt will be made to explore these factors.
As attention is turned to land, it is fortuitous that the issue of agricultural land was explored last week in a rather useful note to me from Peter Webster, who has experience in agriculture both within the confines of the Ministry of Agriculture as well as at the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB).
This essentially rejects my argument that there is too little agricultural land available because “we” need it for housing. His superior knowledge of these matters is acknowledged as he argues that there are some 40 000 acres of classified agricultural land with a further 36 000 acres of potentially viable agricultural land that is uncultivated and is likely to be subdivided.
The problem therefore appears not to be a shortage of land, but a misuse of available land and the logical reason why this happens is, of course, economic, a point Webster agrees with. It is easier and considerably more profitable to subdivide and sell land for construction than it is to cultivate it, which means the problem is perhaps more an economic issue than one of scarcity.
Easy way out
Webster’s note speaks to greed on the part of Government and other developers who find it cheaper to develop agricultural rather than non-arable land, and while I agree we are taking the easy way out, one has to ask if that is not a logical response to a situation where capital for development is scarce.
If overnight food were to become so scarce that the demand and supply principles pushed the cost up, resulting in consequential increases in the value of each acre of agricultural land, the relative value of this land for construction would become a non-issue.
This scenario is, of course, fictional and as such capital goes to the place where returns are greatest; hence capital is more interested in construction than agriculture.
The important consideration here is that Government can artificially create conditions were capital finds agriculture more attractive, but there are consequences. As has been the custom, farmers can be incentivised for keeping their land in agricultural production, but either direct or indirect methods and the relative value of and interest in agricultural land would overtake that of land for construction.
The obvious impact of this initiative would be an increase in the cost of that sector to Government, which would need to pass this on to us, either by way of direct or indirect taxation. Naturally, we are uncomfortable with this direction and would be equally uncomfortable if Government introduced price controls to artificially make this market more attractive.
The alternative to this artificial market manipulation would be a slightly more socialist approach where we “instruct” farmers to keep their land in production or run the risk of losing it. This is in many ways similar to the type of social agenda advanced by the freehold tenantries legislation since it forces an owner to put his property to use in a way that might not be his preferred intention. Naturally, the “food security” imperative is equally compelling, but the impact on individual rights and freedoms is an issue that would require extensive national discussion and consensus.
The issue of agricultural labour is more complicated and is directly influenced by our attitudes both to agricultural work and migrant labour, and these two issues combined have proven to be a toxic mix. Although there is little empirical evidence based on studies, most farmers will tell you that a career in agriculture appears not to be a priority for most Barbadian high school graduates. We can, of course, argue about the cause of this bias and the extent to which it can be changed by education, but it is no less true that Barbadians do not appear to be excessively interested in agricultural jobs at this time.
The level of apparent lack of interest raises the question of imported labour and here too we appear to have some issues. Farmers have more recently been relying on workers from across the region to fill the void created by our lack of interest and this has become increasingly difficult since the current Government’s attention was turned to the large numbers of Caribbean nationals residing here both, legally and illegally.
Increased vigilance as well as a distinctive policy shift, as reflected in the Green Paper On Immigration Policy, has made it challenging for farmers to secure work from itinerant or more regularly employed Caribbean migrants and they now complain of difficulties finding labourers willing to work for the type of wages they are able to pay.
“Hostile” Policies
Previous CADRES surveys on this issue have consistently demonstrated that Barbadians are comfortable with the Government’s somewhat “hostile” immigration policies towards Caribbean migrants. At the same time, however, we are not interested in doing this type of work ourselves, which presents a peculiar dilemma for agriculture here.
As with the issue of land, labour is also responsive to capital (money) and if wages in that sector were increased either through market mechanisms or by legislation, then Barbadians might become interested in the sector again. In the meantime, the problem of agricultural labour remains a major challenge.
Since the issue of capital is central to all factors, attention can now be turned to the final major challenge, which is that of praedial larceny. Ironically, this past week there was a most brazen incident where one farmer’s livestock was slaughtered in a professional manner by someone other than the owner. This act is but one of many frequently reported by farmers and just last year another farmer publicly ploughed his harvest back into the ground out of sheer frustration on account of heavy crop theft.
The peculiar nature of the agricultural enterprise is such that a farmer’s produce will always be more difficult to “secure” than his other possessions. This complexity is enhanced by virtue of our cultural attitude towards agricultural commodities that seems to suggest that a farmer’s produce is to some extent “community property”.
This culture is difficult to change and the matter of security for farms is sufficiently economically challenging that it might be more prudent for a farmer to stop farming instead of investing in sophisticated security and surveillance equipment.
Last week’s article has generated sufficient interest that it is already apparent that experts all over Barbados believe themselves to have solutions to these four complex issues. I am inclined to believe, however, that the fact a solution has been elusive is a clear indication that these factors are not easy to address.
We are to some extent short-sighted as a people since we want to benefit from the sector, but seem unwilling to face the consequences of the necessary decision.
In short, we want to go to heaven, but don’t want to die and, unlike many other commentators, I don’t claim to have the answers, but think I know the important questions to ask. Regardless of which minister or administration is in charge, these issues will continue to make agriculture in Barbados non-viable until we are prepared to take the hard decisions that demonstrate that we understand the reality of the sector.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email: [email protected]
