At the beginning of this month, we reported on questions raised by sustainable development advocate Mr Sydney Allicock with regard to the use of pesticides and fertilisers in the Rupununi by the Santa Fe mega-farm, which is growing rice among other crops. Mr Allicock, who is also a Member of Parliament had asked questions at the parliamentary level last month because of concerns that the runoff from the use of these chemicals could be harmful to the wetlands during the rainy season.
Answers, subsequently provided through the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment, were to the effect that the Santa Fe operation was “committed to proper management of pesticides and fertilisers ensuring minimal discharge and contamination of surrounding waters.” Further, the ministry said, it was advised “that the pesticides and rates used for the rice cultivation are no different from those used on the coastland.” That the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment seemed satisfied with this response and furthermore that it appeared to believe that was the end of the matter is cause for concern.
The average Joe knows—and one assumes that it must have occurred to the folks at the Environment Ministry—that there is a vast difference between the coastland and the Rupununi Savannahs. All the two areas have in common, in fact, might be that they are both in Guyana.
Most of us learned in primary school that Guyana is divided into four natural regions: the low coastal belt; the hilly sand and clay region; the interior savannahs and the forested highlands. Those who undertook further study know that the soil is different in each region, as are the weather conditions and the ecological makeup. The plants, crops and trees that grow well in one region will not do as well in another; the animals that inhabit one area cannot survive in another. And this is particularly the case with our savannahs and forests as opposed to the coast.
Scientists have been saying for years now that agriculture ought to be undertaken in an ecologically friendly manner, given the dangers posed to the planet by climate change, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The reason is that chemical pollution often results from the application of herbicides and pesticides used in agriculture. Pollution also occurs from the run-off of nitrogen and phosphorus-based fertilisers. Nitrogen-based fertilisers such as urea and ammonium sulfate (also used as a herbicide) are both used in the rice industry worldwide. Not all of the fertilizer applied to rice, or any other crop for that matter, is used up by the plants, a percentage of it runs off into waterways or dissipates in the atmosphere. Years ago you might have needed to be a scientist to know this; today a quick search on Google lays it all out.
That being the case, it is curious that no environmental impact assessment was done before the Santa Fe Farm was given the green light to operate in the Rupununi. Minister of Agriculture Dr Leslie Ramsammy had told this newspaper some time ago, that based on its initial success, the mega farm was looking to expand from 20 acres to 1,000 acres of rice and eventually, to take up 30,000 acres of land in the area, which would include other crops and the rearing of ruminants. He had said, “government is also looking favourably at giving them that acreage as it will yield tremendous benefits for us.”
Aside from the monetary benefits we imagine will ensue, Santa Fe and other such operations are important not just to Guyana, but the Caribbean as well. The region, faced with rising annual importation costs, is looking to more indigenous production as it seeks to attain food security. Guyana, with its expanse of land, is said to be in a prime position to make a positive contribution in this regard. At the same time, however, we should be aiming for balance.
Food security, though vital, should not outweigh other equally important factors, such as Guyana’s unique biodiversity, particularly in its savannahs and forests. The extent of the impact on these eco-systems from the introduction of chemicals leached from fertilisers, or pests that might be attracted to certain crops—not just immediately, but also years down the road—should be keenly examined and researched before any such activity is undertaken. There is always a loss of biodiversity when farmlands and pasture lands are initiated and the habitats of species tend to become contracted.
For this reason, sustainable farming, which lends to ecological balance, should be the preferred path. In other places in the world, people are already turning away from chemical, inorganic fertilisers to greener options. In the longer term, it’s the farming that does the least damage that would matter, rather than that which produces the most bountiful crops.
