Over the 10-month period since the initial lockdown, the value and fate of the agricultural sector has seemingly returned to consciousness. But then again, during every economic crisis there is heightened talk about the importance of agriculture. Of course, I need not state that there’s many a slip between the cup and the lip, to confirm that despite the rhetoric of policy makers the past three decades have been marked by a benign neglect of the sector.
For far too many, the agricultural sector is synonymous with backwardness. Now especially, too many view tourism as the only viable pathway to employment and poverty alleviation.
Given the fragilities more than ever exposed by COVID-19, what then is the future of agriculture in Saint Lucia? Given our historical attitudes are a guide, I would not be too sanguine about the sector’s prospects. However, I also accept the adage that necessity is the mother of invention. Our survival necessitates we break with certain modes of thought and behavior. To be sure, some of the factors that have impeded the performance of the agricultural sector are external. This does not obviate the need to understand them and to undertake mitigating measures.
A quick historical or contextual reflection will explain my angst. The well-known Moyne Commission Report (1945), in its section on agriculture asserted: “The general level of agriculture . . . is low in technical knowledge, business organization and management efficiency. Systematic agriculture, by which is meant mixed farming on a plan suited to the inherent circumstances of the area, is unknown. The basic types of agriculture are shifting cultivation under which land may be used for, perhaps, two years in every eight or ten and the continuous growing of one crop on the same land over a long period. Livestock are never the effective complement . . . So long as these methods continue it will be impossible for agricultural production to provide even the essentials of life for the growing population . . . Comprehensive reform of existing agricultural methods is therefore inevitable.”
Notwithstanding the warnings or recommendations tendered 75 years ago, our agricultural sector continues to have the following features: 1) High specialization in a single tropical staple export: bananas. 2) Limited processing of that export. 3) Absence of a significant livestock/dairy sector and 4) Underdevelopment of domestic food-crop sector, as reflected in the low volume of production and consequent limited availability at supermarkets.
Incidentally, there is great variety of produce from small farmers, indicating a greater willingness than demonstrated by larger producers to try new products and seek new markets. Unfortunately for those small farmers, their output and returns have been too low, eliminating the likelihood of it being their principal source of income.
According to our Ministry of Agriculture, there are approximately 730 registered farmers, of whom 192 are women. The average size of their land holding is 1.5-2 acres, while their average age range is 45-55. These figures confirm the perception that agriculture is a backward and unattractive endeavor. Were it otherwise, there would have been more registered farmers, and a younger average age. With a food import bill of over $400 million, an imbalance of nearly $300 million, it is indicative of the great divergence between what we eat and what we produce— evidence of misaligned priorities and values. Our centering of tourists and mimicking their consumption patterns, while placing domestic concerns on the periphery, have not allowed us to develop truly food sovereign strategies.
I expect the retort to be that the price of the imported food items makes them more affordable to lower socio-economic groups. At first blush this seems a meritorious argument. However, closer examination would suggest otherwise. First off, produce farmers in the countries from which we import are heavily subsidized by their governments. Secondly, the imported processed foods have no greater nutritional value than our locally produced foods. Thirdly, the continued purchase of imported items compounds the problems: it does not allow for the emergence of scaled production levels that can reduce unit costs.
The challenges are not beyond us. Their resolution depends on our attitude to manipulate the land, labour, capital and enterprising spirit. This should be undergirded by scientific research, the expansion of credit or capital to farmers, the provision of marketing support and the adoption of more business-like approaches.
The Agricultural Digest does not indicate how much land is currently utilized for agricultural production. However, simple eyeball tests suggest that there is much land that was previously utilized for agriculture that is now either fallow or have been converted to other economic activity. Given the improvements in technology, should additional lands be cultivated for agricultural purposes, greater yields and hence greater total output can be generated off said lands, enhancing our food security.
With high levels of unemployment, significant portions of who are low skilled, there is a high reserve pool, or what Sir Arthur Lewis described as an unlimited supply of labour, that can be deployed to work in agriculture, if only we permit ourselves to view agricultural work for what it is; vital. Several unemployed are eager to join the Canadian Farm-workers Program,” indicating an interesting attitude to agriculture—but not at home!
The current liquidity of financial institutions means there is much capital available to finance agricultural initiatives. For instance, the available liquidity can finance 1) the needs of farmers and entrepreneurs; 2) the transactions between the actors along the value chain, 3) infrastructure needs and 4) research and development in support of the sector.
There are many with degrees in management who are ostensibly proficient at planning, organizing, directing, and controlling resources, that would allow them to take acceptable financial risks in order to get a profit. Those with such entrepreneurial skills ought to be directed towards the agricultural sector. This solution may well be the most vexing part of the challenge, as there are many lingering questions about our managerial and entrepreneurial spirit.
Though I concede it would take some time to shift our production capacities to a level where we can adequately supply external markets, fulfilling local demand should be less arduous. The politicians should undertake a more determined effort at persuading Saint Lucians to eat what we grow and grow what we eat. After all, they seem to have little trouble persuading the population to drink from their respective Kool-Aid troughs!
This article first appeared in the February 2021 edition of the STAR Monthly Review. Be sure to get your printed copy on newsstands or view it here: https://issuu.com/starbusinessweek/docs/star_monthly_review_february_2021
