Dear Editor,
The Low Carbon Develop-ment Strategy (LCDS) consultation exercise that was recently undertaken in the Rupununi raised the issue of proposed large-scale farming of rice and soybeans in the Rupununi savannahs as a possible economic venture under the LCDS. This proposal has drawn the ire of a number of high-profile indigenous personalities who seem to think that such a venture would only damage our ecosystem and way of life.
As a Rupununi resident who has seen vast tracts of unused and under-utilised savannas lands I would like to contradict my ‘Amerindian leaders and elders’ and say that the time is nigh that we start utilising some of these lands for development purposes.
The reason why I go against what my ‘elders and leaders’ are opposing is because the Rupununi region has been underdeveloped for too long and as a consequence the majority of the people live far below the poverty line, resulting in social and economic difficulties. Almost all of the villages in the Rupununi have an unemployment rate which is possibly above 75% of their population. Food prices are high and money is scarce to purchase even the most basic of necessities for the household. Many villagers, especially the younger generation, have had to leave and seek employment in Brazil or on the coastland because very few job opportunities exist in the Rupununi.
The introduction of large-scale farming to the Rupununi may alleviate these problems. There will be employment opportunities, the region will become self-sustainable in rice and most likely the price for this most vital commodity will come down. By virtue of increased employment the standard of living of many villagers will improve. Wouldn’t that be better use of our savannas rather than indiscriminately burning it down every dry season?
We have already given up vast tracts of our forests and rivers in the Rupununi to conservation purposes. That means that economic ventures such as forestry and mining become negligible. We are being told that we should not cut down our forests for farming. We are being told that we must not overfish or hunt for economic purposes. So where does that leave us in terms of economic options? Farming seems the only plausible economic alternative. But where can we do that if both our forests and savannas are put under conservation?
It is time that the people who represent the interests of the Amerindian people start to realise that concessions have to be made in the interest of development. It is unanimously agreed that the forested areas need to be conserved. But we can’t do the same for the savannas, unless we want our people to be dependent on external help for survival.
What should be done is identify the savanna areas of vital importance and make representation to have them exempted from any large-scale farming plan. But we should not generalise and say that the entire savannas need to be protected. In Brazil where there are even stricter conservation practices, parcels of land have been put aside for farming purposes. In the state of Roraima these farmlands encompass large parcels of savannas, similar to our Rupununi savannas. This goes to show that, even while conservation practice is extremely important, equally important is the need to be self-sustainable.
It is urged that our government give serious consideration to utilising our vast savanna lands for large-scale farming. However, this farming should be done in such a way that it benefits the people in terms of employment opportunities, educates them on better farming practices, and contributes to the development of communities by way of infrastructure such as roads, electricity, sports facilities, etc. The ‘Amerindian leaders and elders’ could contribute to this process by being the contact between the people and the government as to how best to maximise benefits from any proposed large scale farming investment.
Yours faithfully,
E Fredericks
