What agriculture incentives?

Trinidad and Tobago's Finance Minister Karen Nunez-Teshiera told reporters last week that government spending is aimed at taking the country forward “to the realization of vision 2020” and boasted that agriculture is getting the most incentives.

She was clear that it was not spending “that has no end” but rather a medium term necessity to meet government's objectives of diversification of the economy away from energy.

The minister was putting spin on the runaway spending that has caught the eye of the Central Bank and international financial institutions. The World Bank has said Trinidad and Tobago needs to watch its spending on mega-projects.

And the central bank governor has cautioned government about its expenditure. Ewart Williams told journalists last month it is imperative for the government to slow down the public spending both by the central government and quasi-government institutions.

He predicted that unless government “cools it” inflation would remain in double digits. In January it reached 10 per cent, and dropped slightly by the end of March. Williams said governments all over the world are watching inflation closely and developing monetary policies to keep it in check.

Read related story: Central Bank governor warns government about big spending

But the finance minister wanted to make it clear that if the country is expected to diversify away from energy it must spend money on dealing “creatively” with traffic congestion, education, skills training and health.

“To achieve developed status, we have to raise the Human Development Index, therefore we have to attend to education, health and infrastructure. Expenditure is intended to diversify the economy and to take the country to the realization of the 2020 vision. It is not expenditure that has no end, it is an expenditure that is medium term to meet those objectives,” she told reporters.

She dismissed criticism of public expenditure on mega-projects noting that Williams was speaking of liquidity, consumerism and the need to encourage a culture of savings.

She said government is aware of the inflationary pressures, which she attributed to the high cost of food.

“Government has given the most incentives in the area of agriculture. What government is doing, and doing apace is increasing food supply and food production,” she told reporters.

What incentives?

Apart from a food consultation that was more than an election gimmick prior to the 2007 poll, very little has been done to help develop agriculture. All the historical problems remain and the promise of small farms created from thousands of acres of former sugar lands remains a promise.

The fortunate few who have started farming on these lands are faced with soil problems created by excess acidity from many years of sugar cane cultivation. Irrigation is also a major problem.

The solution is simple. Provide the funding – estimated about $140 million – to fix the twin problem.

After all, the government had no problem finding the same amount of money to build a mansion for the prime minister and has been spending recklessly on other projects like the Lara Stadium that is running up a cost of more than half a billion dollars.

The minister’s boast of the most incentives for this pariah sector in the economy is dishonest. If spin could put food on the table everyone in Trinidad and Tobago would be feasting at the Hyatt hotel like the prime minister and there would be no crisis.

Why, for example didn’t the minister explain why the Government has failed to accept an offer of $360 million from the European Union (EU) to help agricultural development for former sugar producers?

The EU did not make the gesture overnight. The opposition was asking about it during the 2007 election campaign. And Kamla Persad-Bissessar produced documents that she claimed was evidence that the government did not care for the EU money.

It turns out that she was right.

The Manning administration did not cash in on the first tranche of $40 million two years ago and there is no sign that it will meet the mid-2008 deadline to apply for the second.

The EU doesn’t just give away money. It had asked for serious proposals on the government’s strategy to make use of the human resources formerly engaged in sugar cane production.

So why was it so difficult for the government to produce a strategy when it had been saying for years it has one? Instead it missed the boat on that first $40 million.

There is talk that the Ministry of Agriculture is working on a document that outlines strategies to retrain and re-employ sugar workers as part of its plan following the closure of the sugar industry. That’s a prerequisite for applying for the EU grant.

But it’s not clear if the government wants the money. The real issue is whether the government is honest about what it wants to do with the former sugar cane workers.

It is all well and good to pontificate about it as it has been doing for years, but spin and empty promises don’t convince international institutions.

So far the administration has failed to act on its own proposals to transform the abandoned cane lands into alternative, valuable employment.

And if the Government remains unwilling or incapable of making a credible case to the EU, the country would miss out entirely on a grant of millions of dollars that could have fixed the many problems. That EU money could make the difference between success and failure for struggling farmers.

But who cares?

They are just former sugar workers "who doh vote for we," to quote the late PNM head honcho Ronald Jay Williams.

And there are much more important things on the government's agenda, such as private jets, new hotels, parking lots and other infrastructure that are demanding billions while the poor remain hungry.