Soon it will be crunch time again for rice farmers who will be expecting payments for their bumper output. The government’s mid-year report pointed to the scale of the bounty. Rice production rose by 15.3% to 359,960 tonnes compared with last year’s record high first-half harvest of 312,283 tonnes. Indications are that the entire year’s output will exceed last year’s. With the loss of the approximately 200,000-tonne, preferential-priced Venezuelan market there is now a vast gulf between rice output and guaranteed sales.
What is needed from the government and the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB) are clears answers which may or may not provide assurances to farmers but may at least give them an accurate picture of the situation on the ground and allow them to make decisions.
First, has the contractual commitment to the Venezuelan market been fulfilled after the earlier hiatus over the shipping schedule? If not and notwithstanding the tense relations between the two countries will steps be taken to ensure that the remaining quota is spread around and filled?
Second, the entire question of marketing Guy-ana’s rice has drawn unsatisfactory responses from the government. Several spokesmen have intimated that it is not the responsibility of the government to find rice markets. That may indeed be the case but it would be the most abject abdication of its stewardship for the government not to do all within its power to help find markets for these growers who engaged in this back-breaking business characterised by small margins and the ever present middleman.
While there has been a lot of talk by government officials about new markets there has been little certitude and thus far no concluded agreement of notable size. The most recent reference to new rice markets came during PM Nagamootoo’s visit to Mexico last week where “commercialisation” was spoken about. What is needed urgently is a matching of the market needs of Mexico with what is available here and this should be expedited by the two governments by putting their private sectors in touch with each other and providing an enabling environment.
Other government officials and persons in the industry have identified a list of other possible markets. Whether this is founded on any real basis or is wishful thinking is yet unknown. The mentioned countries include Panama, Portugal, Haiti, Brazil, French Guiana, Ghana, China and Canada. What is needed is a clear statement from the GRDB on deals struck. Since their appointment, neither the GRDB Chairman Mr Housty nor its head Mr Hassan has provided any useful information on the sourcing of markets and what is being done to find more. It is now time for a definitive statement from the GRDB on what has been achieved and whether it has advised the Ministry of Business that marketing missions should be immediately mounted.
While global market opportunities have been seen as a result of the El Nino weather phenomenon and other problems, the question is whether the roughly $3,000 per bag price under the Venezuelan PetroCaribe programme that had been paid to local farmers is available in any of these markets and if not what that would mean for the large stocks that are likely on hand.
What steps thus far have the GRDB and the ministers responsible for commerce and foreign affairs made to ensure that fellow Caricom countries take up as much of the rice that is available and that local millers and farmers pay greater attention to being reliable suppliers and showing greater loyalty to these markets? Presumably the Caricom Council on Trade and Economic Development has been written to in a bid to obviate the non-tariff barriers that are frequently thrown up in the way of Guyana’s rice and to ensure that a schedule of the rice needs of individual Caricom members is forwarded to Guyana. Guyana should also ask COTED to ensure that the Common External Tariff is rigorously applied to any extra-regional imports.
With the end of harvesting approaching, by December the government should be able to say with authority how much rice/paddy was left back from last year, how much paddy/rice was produced in the first and second crops this year, how much paddy/rice was exported and to which markets, how much rice was consumed locally, how much rice/paddy remains and plans for future marketing.
Depending on what transpires, right-sizing of the market will likely take place on its own next year. Farmers who have been frustrated by this year’s returns may very well not return to the fields for 2016’s first crop raising the questions of how they and their families are going to be sustained and the impact that this will have on the economy.
The next phase of serious work by the GRDB and the government will have to be in relation to the value-added industry. It was only last year that the Ramotar administration made feeble attempts to get a rice cereal initiative going. It is unclear what plans the Granger administration has in this area as nothing concrete has been publicized. This will however be imperative otherwise the economic momentum generated by the rice farmers over the last five or six years in particular will be lost. The Ministry of Agriculture, the rice development board, NAREI and the Institute of Applied Science and Technology should be taking the lead in this while avoiding platitudes.
The government fulfilled an APNU+AFC manifesto pledge by staging a rice conference earlier this year but it failed to hit the mark. Another high-level forum this time with only two clear objectives: finding new markets and adding value should be convened. It should be addressed by marketers with full knowledge of openings, and experts in the value-added area. The relevant government agencies should work along with the Rice Producers Association to make this a reality. Time is of the essence.
