There are so many issues in need of comment that it would take a daily rather than a weekly column to deal with them all. But, bearing in mind my passion for agriculture which, in spite of its continued neglect, is now being touted by many as our saviour in the future, I will deal with that today.
Let me thank my good friend Orlando Marville for his kind comments in the SUNDAY SUN, but I can’t agree that I’m a pessimist. Rather, I’m a realist. If I were a pessimist, I would have given up on agriculture long ago, but instead I plead constantly for positive action. I am frustrated, rather than negative, since my pleas are usually met by a brick wall, more often than not constructed by Government.
That is not to say that farmers don’t need to improve their performance, but some of their lacklustre attitude results from low morale caused by successive Governments’ indecision.
I think Orlando missed my point. The earning of foreign exchange and the local losses on sugar production are different issues. As far as I am aware, if you export, you earn foreign exchange, so while sugar production has drastically declined, it still earns foreign exchange, 90 per cent of which stays in Barbados. Molasses produced locally, however decreased, is still used by the rum industry.
The economics of production is another matter that must be urgently addressed, but as I have so often said, the benefits of sugar cane are not limited to dollar earnings. If we abandon the sugar industry, Barbados will revert to forest as is already evident in some parts of the island. Will visitors be attracted to such a scenario?
Why is the industry losing money? For the benefit of those less well informed, the Government-run Barbados Agricultural Management Co. Ltd (BAMC) owns the two sugar factories, runs the variety testing station, and supplies 40 per cent of the cane, while private farmers supply the remaining 60 per cent. BAMC took over the management of plantations highly indebted to the Barbados National Bank in the 1990s.
They were to show the private farmers “how it is done”. Rather than that, BAMC is a massive bureaucracy, with costs approaching $2 million per week, whose production performance is generally below that of the private farmers. When Bulkeley factory was closed, those workers were reportedly absorbed elsewhere in BAMC so that the staff which produced 65 000 tons of sugar is now being paid to produce 18 000 tons. Is that feasible? Furthermore, at a time when there is such focus on productivity, BAMC replaces productivity payments with hourly wages for factory workers, another reason for the inflated cost.
It is evident that the production cost of sugar could be halved if the industry carried only the true commercial costs rather than being burdened by “social costs”, which rightfully belong in the Ministry of Social Care. Unless this is corrected, the industry will probably disappear.
Then there is the marketing arrangement. Does it make sense to export local sugar for around $900 per ton, then to import sugar for local use at around $1 400 per ton and sell this imported sugar at around $1 300 per ton, because the local retail price of non-branded sugar is controlled? Why should sugar price be controlled? Why should sweet potato for instance, be sold at $3.00 per pound and sugar at less than $1.00 per pound? The result of this “comedy of errors” is that private farmers are in fact subsidizing BAMC to their own detriment.
Meanwhile, BAMC has had a machine which produces sugar sachets used by hotels, restaurants and cruise ships for about five years but has not managed to get it “up and running” to create an additional market for sugar at a price well above the price currently being obtained. Why is this?
Successive Governments have avoided making the necessary decisions to restructure the haemorrhaging industry for so long that an urgent injection of funds is now needed to stabilize the situation before any progress is possible. It is noteworthy that the industry was promised $9 million by Government last year, but to date has only received $2 million. Meanwhile, we hear of a $600 million stimulus for construction, which is not a net foreign exchange earner.
Indecision will be the downfall of the sugar industry . . . and this country!
• Dr Frances Chandler is a former Independent senator.
