Agriculture, pumpkin and bhaji

TREVOR SUDAMA

OVER THE years, journalists, commentators and letter writers in the media have assigned to me the label of “Minister of Pumpkin and Bhaji.” It was a fanciful term of disparagement of both myself and local agriculture. Recently, columnist Indera Sagewan, writing under the elaborate title of “Specialist Economist in Competitiveness,” would devote a whole column to regurgitating hoary rebuttals of Minister Clarence Rambharat’s unfortunate, misguided and selective attack on the consumption of doubles in which, unrelatedly, she chose to identify me as the “bhajie minister” which she claimed I protested to be beneath my ilk.

Let me state at the outset that I had a fleeting and undistinguished tenure as minister of agriculture for just over a year and a half from December 1999 to August 2001 when, coming in conflict with the powers that be, I was removed. I never stated that the agriculture portfolio was beneath my status as alleged.

The home truth is that the agricultural sector is in a lamentable state because no administration, past or present, including the one to which I belonged, viewed agriculture as a science-based, technology-driven, efficiency and productivity-focused enterprise requiring appropriate policy prescriptions and programmes and investment in research and development, innovation, product development, entrepreneurship, technology acquisition, adaption and dissemination, basic infrastructure and appropriate skills training and development.

There was little emphasis on the scale development of identifiable products and services for import substitution or export promotion. Agriculture was always regarded as a low-skilled, low-income primary activity which was the refuge of those who could not do better.

It is necessary to recall a bit of history with respect to my tenure in agriculture which provides the context in which the journalistic diversion of “pumpkin and bhaji” emerged. My first full year was 2000 when the first half was almost entirely consumed with efforts at reviving sugar output which had declined to below 80,000 tons the previous year.

There was in place an indifferent and minimally functional board of directors. After extensive consultations and exhortations, the output for the year was increased to 120,000 tons but with continuous and tiresome pleadings with the minister of finance for routine recurrent expenditure support.

The problem with the local sugar industry was structural. The industry was a very high-cost producer in a situation in which preference prices in the main EU export market were in terminal decline and demand in the local market was limited.

In order to reduce production costs and significant dependency on the Treasury, it was necessary to introduce further mechanisation and technological upgrade which meant a reduction in manual and field labour which constituted the majority of the work force. Such a proposal could only be considered in the context of investment in other agricultural activities over a period of time to absorb displaced labour.

Caroni (1975) Ltd had the land and labour resources, field engineering and transport infrastructure, some research and technical competencies in soil science and preparation and product development to serve as the core institution in this contemplated restructuring of the agricultural sector with private sector participation. It was clear to me that the future of a significant number of sugar workers could only be guaranteed in agricultural activities outside of sugar.

The ministry discussed a draft outline proposal for the restructuring of Caroni (1975) Ltd and the company’s participation in laying the groundwork for a preliminary diversification of the agricultural sector. In July 2000, I told prime minister Basdeo Panday that it was difficult to continue with the operations of Caroni as they were and that there was need for change.

The biggest issue would be the redeployment of displaced staff in newly financed and developed agricultural activities. The ministry had prepared a rudimentary outline framework for discussion. I was summarily and bluntly told to leave Caroni severely alone.

The other major responsibility which fell under the ministry was the Forestry Division. When I assumed office, complaints were made to me by many of the smaller sawmillers that they were denied access to teak and pine removal licences from state fields because a co-operative society dominated by larger sawmillers was granted a virtual monopoly over the award of such licences.

I initiated a change in the ministry’s policy which placed a cap on the quantum of a single award and the number of licences that could be granted to a single sawmiller in a given period. Such a change ensured greater equity in access to pine and teak removal licences to all sawmillers, particularly the smaller ones. The sawmillers co-operative protested the change in the new system of allocation, approached the prime minister with their grievances and took the ministry to court. Their legal representative was no less a personage than the wife of the attorney general.

In addition, I resisted the contemplated sale of Tanteak to the CL Financial conglomerate (Duprey) before the ministry had an opportunity to properly review the operations of Tanteak and, if sold, to ensure reasonable arrangements for the availability of its products to hardwares, builders, woodwork establishments and homeowners.

After the general election in the last quarter of 2000, Caroni (1975) Ltd was removed from the portfolio of the ministry of agriculture and, for the first time, placed under the ministry of industry and trade. Forestry was also taken away from agriculture and put under the ministry of the environment. It was clear that my perspective on Caroni and my decisions in forestry did not sit well with the head of government.

Subsequent to the 2000 election, the late Louis Homer, who was at the time a journalist with the Express newspaper, phoned me to enquire about my new portfolio and any changes made which was now renamed the ministry of food production. I said Caroni and forestry were assigned to other ministries and that the emphasis now was on food production. He then blurted out, “So you are now the Minister of Pumpkin and Bhaji.”

The next day he published his own statement in the newspaper as a headline and dishonestly attributed it to me. The public lapped up the handy term as a form of ridicule and amusement which has since been interminably repeated.

In the meantime, agriculture remains a pitiful national joke.