Despite vociferous objections by the Opposition, the government used its majority on Thursday to pass the National Agricultural Research and Extension Institute Bill 2010.
The bill is aimed at promoting “greater efficiency in the crops and agricultural product industry, to provide enhanced services in Agricultural Research and Extension and Crop Protection and to establish the National Agricultural Research and Extension Institute, so as to make provision for effective administration and regulation of trade, commerce and export of crops and agricultural products and for matters related or incidental.” Earlier this year, the House passed a bill to establish the Guyana Livestock Development Authority, which was set up to provide effective administration and regulation of the industry.
Agriculture Minister Robert Persaud argued that the bill was a “very important piece of legislation” which integrates research with extension services and plant health. This is important, he said, as the country prepares itself to be a main agro processing destination. He said the bill was brought to the House after 24 months of deliberations.
Persaud said when the government began its Agricultural Diversification Programme with assistance from the international bodies they were advised to look at institutions and services and various weaknesses present in the system. He said that by establishing the National Agricultural Research and Extension Institute some of the weaknesses will be addressed.
During his presentation, PNCR-1G MP Mervyn Williams asked that the bill be sent to a special select committee since there were several “kinks” in the proposed legislation. According to Williams, while the bill appeared to be one without any provisions that would be of concern to anyone, “the deep undercurrent of far-reaching implications runs strong”. He questioned what was being done by the administration to deal with the erosion of the current capacity of the National Agricultural and Research Institution (NARI). He also charged that NARI “has not done any scientific research work in five years”.
He suggested too that the true motive behind the bill was to enable the country to receive US$6 billion in donor money.
AFC MP Khemraj Ramjattan suggested that there was an element of suspicion to the bill and said it was another case of “control freakism”. The bill, he said, was an ingenious way of literally retrenching the existing sets of NARI officials who constitute field superintendants upwards except board members. He also questioned the shift in policy which will now make certain officials who were previously entitled to duty-free concessions, ineligible. He also queried what would happen with the benefits of certain former NARI employees who would now be employed at the new entity or those of those who chose not to go there.
He expressed concern about the apparent bureaucracy that the bill created and also expressed anxiety about the amount of power the minister had in the bill.
Public Service Minister Dr Jennifer Westford accused the Opposition speakers of being “deliberate misconceptions” to the House. She rejected assertions that workers were being retrenched and said that all workers would be given their benefits appropriately. Westford said that the administration has taken steps to invest in the training of plant scientists, saying that there are 14 plants scientists and a further 22 are in training.
Meanwhile, while wrapping up the debate on the bill, Persaud chided the Opposition speakers for trivializing the efforts of NARI in terms of their efforts to produce quality scientific research. He said that in recent times, the body has produced 20 scientific papers looking at new technologies to deal with climate change. He said five papers by NARI were published in international journals.
