Coconut Thinktank

Leave a reply

Are you interested in growing coconuts? Whether on a small or commercial scale there several factors which can influence how productive your coconut trees are.

At the recently conclude coconut think tank several presentations were made which covered the general agronomy, pests and diseases, post harvest handling for good water quality, an economic analysis of coconut farming profitability and the wide range of uses that all parts of the coconut can be put to.

Below you will find links to all the presentations made at the think tank.

The BSTA would like to thank the Agricultural Research and Variety Testing Unit at Groves, St. George, for allowing us use of their facility to host the think tank.

Growing

cctt-fc

Pests

cctt-ig

Diseases

cctt-mj

Coconut Water Quality
cctt-jb

Profitability

cctt-ae

 

The Wonderful World of Coconut Products

cctt-mm

Marble Amber – Somatic Embryogenesis for Disease-free Sugarcane

Leave a reply

The is the first in a series of presentation  which were presented at the Agricultural Research and Variety Testing Unit’s recently concluded seminar.  Each of the presentation will be looking at technological solutions for solving existing problems in Barbados agriculture.

This presentation specifically looks at the use of somatic embryogenesis, a type of tissue culture, and a possible avenue for large scale production planting material free from Ratoon Stunting Disease a wide spread problem locally

MarbleAmber.

RESOLUTION!

Leave a reply

The Council of the BSTA recently passed a resolution expressing concern about the lack of information being present to be the public regarding the proposed Cahill Water to energy plant and the Multipurpose sugar factory. Find the full text below.

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS the Cahill Waste to Energy plant and the State of the Art Multipurpose Sugar Factory projects, each reportedly valued in excess of $Bds.500M, appear to be proceeding towards implementation without adequate information being provided to stakeholders and without a number of regulations being complied with.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT in the interest of all Barbadians, these and all other government projects must be properly analysed for environmental impact and technical and financial viability as required by the established rules of the government of Barbados and as required for good governance of the country.

Furthermore those analyses must be conducted in a transparent manner by suitably qualified persons/organisations.
We wish you and Barbados all success in the future.
With respect,
Yours faithfully,

Marina Laurie (Mrs)
Secretary/Treasurer
Barbados Society of Technologists in Agriculture

This was delivered to :
The Rt. Hon. Freundel J Stuart
Dr the Hon. David Estwick, Minister of Agriculture
Dr the Hon. Denis Lowe, Minister of the Environment
The Hon. Christopher Sinckler, Minister of Finance

Field tour to the future site of Walkers Reserve

Leave a reply

Walker’s Reserve will be the future of the current Walker’s Sand Quarry when it ceases to operate. After many decades of supplying sand to the local construction industry the available sand is being exhausted and plans for the  future of the site as an eco-reserve are well underway.

Here is a link to some photographs of our tour.  There are some pictures of the plant nursery which is growing plant  for later stages of the regeneration project and which may be providing plant to the public for sale at a later date, and several of the various stages of that the project is at.

Walkers BSTA field tour

For more information on the project you can visit the Walker Reserve Website

Please contact the BSTA if there is something you wish to highlight regarding the use of technology in agriculture in barbados.

 

A SWOT of Sugar by Peter Webster

Leave a reply

Introduction

More than 40 years ago one of our Caribbean political leaders declared that the sugar industry in the region was a “dead horse” and another expressed the wish to see the day when there was not a “cane blade” in Barbados.  The reality is that the sugar cane in particular, and agriculture in general, remains critical to the agro-industrial output of Barbados and has the potential to be a modern prop for our 21st century economy.

The contribution of agriculture to an economy is often undervalued since the agro-industrial activity related to the agriculture is seldom recognized.  An agro-industrial complex includes input manufacturing, distribution, marketing and supply together with the agricultural product storage handling, processing, transport, marketing and distribution.  In such a complex the agricultural or farm gate value itself is seldom more than 20% of the total market value.  The value added is four times that of the agriculture itself, but without the agriculture there can be no value added. Research has shown that a dollar spent in agriculture is recycled on average six times in an economy which is more than that in any other sector.  This is why the developed countries have no problem supporting and subsidizing their agriculture.

Background

Barbados covers 166 square miles or just over 106,000 acres.  About 70,000 acres of this were formerly suitable for agriculture (arable) of which about 10,000 of those arable acres were in the Scotland district.  The other 36,000 acres were mostly “rab” land, swamps, coastal pastures and built on.

At the peak of the sugar industry in Barbados (1970) as much as 65,000 acres of the agricultural land were cultivated in sugar cane of which roughly 50,000 acres were harvested annually with the remaining 15,000 acres in food and other crops being rotated on fallow sugar cane lands.

Agricultural land has been the least expensive of all the land with development potential and therefore the target of developers and “changed in use” for building and other “development” purposes.  In 2007 a Town and Country Planning Department report indicated that, up to that time, change of use permission had been granted for about 30,000 acres of agricultural land leaving about 40,000 acres for agriculture.  This was misleading because several sub-divisions of agricultural land for small farms had not been counted as “changed in use” but had since become housing developments (Sandford, Rowans, Cottage, et al).

In any case, there was still about 30,000 acres of agricultural land available for agriculture at that time.

In 1971, the Government of Barbados approved legislation titled the Sugar Industry Act (1971) which gave it the power to surcharge/tax/huff all windfall profits in the industry and to legislate wage levels for the industry, both of which it subsequently did.  The tax of windfall profits in 1974 and 1981 amounted to more than $50 million (at a time when $1.00 could buy more than 10 times what it could buy today) and wage levels were increased by more than 100% in 10 years.

At the same time, the Government’s agricultural policy promoted crop diversification from sugar cane and the Ministry of Agriculture withdrew its support for the sugar industry.

Without the windfall profits, which had previously kept the industry alive, coupled with the increasingly high operating costs, all private investment in the industry dried up and by 1990, 26 of the sugar plantations were heavily indebted to the Barbados National Bank.

In 1992, the Government established the Barbados Agricultural Credit Trust (BACT), a state corporation, to which it transferred the huge sugar industry debt from the Barbados National Bank.  The Government also established the Barbados Agricultural Management Company (BAMC), another state corporation, to manage the industry.  BAMC subsequently leased the 26 “heavily indebted” plantations so that they could continue to cultivate them in sugar cane rotated with other crops.  BAMC also took over the management of the six sugar factories operating at the time.

Since then, the debts of 23 of the heavily indebted plantations have been cleared by the owners.  This leaves a residual debt that cannot justify the continued existence of BACT and in 2007 recommendations were made to the Government that BACT, which has a significant annual operating cost should be closed.  BACT is still in existence.

All through the 1960s, Barbados production averaged over 30 tons of cane, or about 4.0 tons of sugar, per acre.  This productivity has declined continuously since then and now averages less than 20 tons of cane or 2.0 tons of sugar per acre.  Two sugar factories are still being kept in operation at great, unnecessary expense as one would suffice.  The factories are operating inefficiently with upwards of 50 % down time resulting in significant sugar losses.

Strengths

Sugar Cane is a grass, ideally suited to Barbados soils and climate (variable rainfall and temperature) with great soil erosion control which serves to improve the soil and control weeds, more so than any crop (i.e. other than another grass).

No other crop which can be grown in Barbados at the potential scale (> 10 thousand acres) of sugar cane can earn the equivalent in external/border value (equivalent foreign exchange) per acre.

A wide range of products can be manufactured from the sugar cane (sugar, candy/confectionaries, molasses/ethanol/rum and electricity) which can all be marketed and consumed locally in Barbados.  In addition, there is a product flexibility which allows the quantities to be adjusted to market demand.  

Barbados has a familiar tradition of growing sugar cane and processing it into sugar and a resulting wide knowledge base in its production.  There is already a significant investment in the production infrastructure for the sugar cane and sugar but it urgently needs a change in focus from an export market to the local market.  This can be achieved by a simple downsizing with a focus on improving productivity of what is already there.

The sugar cane is a great supporting crop for most other crops which can utilize the sugar cane infrastructure while being rotated with the cane.  In effect, the sugar cane has been the foundation of Barbados agriculture.

Weaknesses

In the past the Barbados sugar industry has been focused on bulk sugar for export with a molasses bi-product consumed locally in the manufacture of rum. However, the vulnerability of the Barbados sugar industry to world market conditions and the reality of the loss of the EU Preferential Quota regime (in 2007?) have necessitated urgent action for product diversification within the industry and a change in focus from export to the local market.  This has not happened yet.

High operating costs and low productivity currently characterize an industry with high financial losses (>$100 million per year) and low morale that is still operating under the “draconian” 1971 Sugar Industry Act.

The industry has had little to no research support and lots of talk but little effort has been made in recent years to improve productivity.

The sugar industry is being managed by a state owned corporation and “quasi-civil servants” whose compatriots were described 40 years ago as an “army of occupation”.  Despite continuous complaints by the general public, this “army” has made no effort to improve productivity, with the Government’s top down “reform” attempts achieving little more than cosmetic changes and a disheartened Reform Unit.

The quasi-civil servants in BAMC, far from promoting productivity, have moved to remuneration based on “time” in an industry where remuneration is based worldwide on productivity.

BAMC is currently producing sugar cane at twice the cost of independent/private growers in Barbados and the cost of sugar production is more than five times the import cost.

Opportunities

The sugar cane is the world’s most efficient crop in converting solar energy to stored energy.  Only maize/corn and other grasses utilize the same or a similar carbon pathway in photosynthesis.  The high costs of fossil fuels now boost the potential value of the sugar cane to higher levels not only for its bio-mass in co-generation but also for bio-fuel (ethanol) to power motor vehicles.

Sugar cane produces more bio-mass (mainly cellulose) per acre than any other crop (including river tamarind).  Since cellulose is a polysaccharide consisting of a linear chain of thousands of linked glucose units (the basic chemical building block of ethanol from fermentation by yeast) the future potential of cellulosic ethanol from sugar cane is great – in theory bagasse can produce more than ten times the amount of ethanol as the equivalent amount of sugar (sucrose).

The technology for cellulosic ethanol has however not yet been developed to a financially feasible point and is unlikely to be achieved in the near future.  Even then the patents of the developer will be too costly to make it financially feasible in the foreseeable future.

Brazil currently achieves yields of 400 liters of ethanol from a ton of bagasse utilizing an acid hydrolysis process to release the glucose units in the cellulose for fermentation.  This volume of ethanol is roughly the same as can be produced (fermented) from a ton of sucrose.  Unfortunately, the acid bi-product in the Brazil process is proving very expensive to dispose of and is environmentally unfriendly.

It is understood that an element of the private sector has made a preliminary offer to the Government to take over the management of the industry in Barbados.  It is likely that this would involve a realistic downsizing but could result in a significantly more financially viable operation with reduced costs to the taxpayer.

Threats

The International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists (ISSCT) at its twenty-fifth International Congress held in Durban, South Africa in 2005, identified the smallest financially viable sugar industry in the world as one which cultivates 10,000 hectares or 25,000 acres in sugar cane.  This suggests that there is a “minimum critical mass” requirement for a sugar industry which will vary depending on productivity, costs and prices, but we can safely assume that it is at least 25,000 acres for Barbados.

The concept of a minimum critical mass, with built in economies of scale, applies to each and every crop. Crop diversification failed in Barbados because markets are simply too small to justify anything near the minimum critical mass for any crop, other than sugar cane, unless there is an attractive export market.

It was for this reason that the 1994-2008 Government administration was committed to guaranteeing the sugar cane growers $100 per ton of cane in order for them to be encouraged to increase sugar cane cultivation from the 2007 level of 22,000 acres (of which 18,000 acres were harvested annually) to 30,000 acres in order to achieve the needed economies of scale and minimum critical mass.

Since 2008, sugar cane cultivation has shrunk to less than 18,000 acres of which about 10,000 acres were harvested this year (2013) and this area is continuing to shrink, with little or no attempt made by the Government to arrest it.  The price paid to growers has also been cut and several promises for an additional cane payment have not been honoured.

The appetite of developers for cheap agricultural land continues unabated and the Town and Country Planning system in Barbados has not demonstrated the courage (or the integrity?) to resist the developers’ greed.  Instead Barbadians have been fed the argument that a developed acre of land is worth many times the value of an acre of agriculture.  This is misleading because it cherry picks the one option of agriculture or development, but this is not the only option.  What about agriculture and development?  We need to develop the thousands of acres of the non-agricultural land instead.  The result is likely to be a continuing of the trend of dwindling availability of lands for agriculture in general and the sugar industry in particular.

Furthermore, the political concern that sugar must not be seen as “dying under our watch” could also cost the taxpayers of Barbados millions in a vain attempt by the Government of the day to keep it alive if only in intensive care.

Conclusions

Can Barbados justify the huge investment needed ($400 million) to diversify the sugar industry given the limited and shrinking area available for cultivation of sugar cane and the poor productivity that exists?

What is the likelihood that the quasi-civil servants managing the industry can increase productivity after twenty one years of decline under their management?

Will the Government have the courage to “improve” the legislation under which the industry operates and/or allow the private sector to take it over?

The answers to these questions will determine the future of the sugar and agricultural industries in Barbados.

Peter Webster

 

Note:  Peter Webster is a retired Portfolio Manager of the Caribbean Development Bank and a former Senior Agricultural Officer in the Ministry of Agriculture.

 

NO FOOD DAY by Peter Webster

Leave a reply

October 16, 2011 designated as “World Food day” has come and gone – or has it? For too many of the billion hungry people the world over, most days are “no food day”.  The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) promoted the theme “Food Prices – From Crisis to Stability” to highlight a worldwide trend that is “hurting the poor consumer, the small producer and agriculture in general” because “food prices which were stable for decades have become increasingly volatile”.  They concluded that “controlling prices was key to the fight against hunger”.

FAO further lamented that “Agriculture cannot respond fast enough with increased food production because of long-term under-investment in research, technology, equipment and infrastructure”.

The statement by the FAO Director General, Dr. Jacques Diouf, leaves several unanswered questions: Why did FAO emphasise the volatility or fluctuation of food prices and not the fact that the prices were higher although fluctuating? How do higher prices hurt producers and agriculture in general?  Why does FAO concern itself with the hungry?  Since when are the interests of food producers the same as those of consumers?  Could the high price of energy be a contributing factor to high food prices? and Why is there under-investment in agriculture?

It is unfortunate that the FAO statement does not distinguish between the food producers and distributors. Promoting more investment in agriculture is like “pushing rope” since it deals with an effect and not the cause! Food producers around the world have repeatedly increased their production when they are adequately rewarded for their investment.  Our experience in Barbados supports this.  When our government in 1971 taxed all of the nasty profits out of our highly efficient sugar industry (over $50 million between 1974 and 1981) the result was dwindling capital investment in the industry with productivity falling by 50% from a high of over ten tonnes of sugar per hectare to the five tonnes per hectare currently being achieved.

Our people supposedly abhor agriculture but several are reputed to be cultivating marijuana in discreet nooks and crannies around the island despite the risk of imprisonment.  Why are they not growing sweet potatoes and yams?  Could it be that cultivation of the latter is not lucrative enough?

We need to stop expecting the food producers to feed the poor and hungry – this is society’s responsibility not the food producers who are trying to earn a living!

I strongly recommend that FAO focus on its mandate to promote food production and leave the job of feeding the hungry to those with that conflicting mandate.  In the process FAO should ensure that OXFAM and other food-aiders feed the hungry with fresh, healthy food from their poor countries like rice, yams, sweet potatoes, vegetables and coconut water instead of over-processed and unhealthy wheat flour and powdered milk.  This would promote food production in the very countries where most of the hungry are located. Unfortunately, such action would put the food-aiders out of work and we cannot have that, can we?

I recall hearing President Bush (the son) admit in the dying days of his Presidency (October, 2008) that the USA had made a mistake in providing food-aid to poor countries.  He concluded that the USA should have helped the countries to produce their own food instead.  At the time I thought “Wow! I wonder how many people have heard and will remember this”.  Obviously not many!

FAO also supports the “elimination of trade-distorting agricultural subsidies in rich countries”.  Rubbish! Agricultural subsidies have been practiced by the rich countries for centuries. It is one of the reasons why they are rich!  Their economies are not bled by having to import billions of $ in foreign food.  Subsidies promote their agricultural industries, maintain their producers’ standard of living and contribute significantly to their economies by providing value added opportunities which amount to more than the value of their agricultural industry.  They also promote their countries’ food security.  Such subsidies only distort trade in agricultural commodities when the surpluses they tend to produce are dumped on the world market at less than their real cost of production.  It is the act of dumping that distorts the trade not the subsidies!

Governments the world over subsidise housing, health, education, transport, and utilities for the poor but are not supposed to subsidise the most basic and important item needed by the poor – food !  Logic seems to be lacking.  Furthermore, if the subsidies are eliminated where would the food-aiders get their cheap food to feed the hungry?  Round and round we go….!

Peter Webster

NB: Peter Webster is a retired Portfolio Manager of the Caribbean Development Bank and a former Senior Agricultural Officer in the Ministry of Agriculture.

Should We Produce Our Own Food? by Peter Webster

Leave a reply

I was amused by the recent comments of a World Bank economist reported in the news on Friday 25, January, 2008 that “It may be better for small states such as the developing countries of the Caribbean to de-emphasise agricultural production, import food and focus their attention on reducing poverty”.  These comments were nothing new as some of our regional economists have been saying the same misguided thing for years, but they reminded me of former USA President Ronald Reagan’s description of economists as “People who see something actually working in reality and still question whether it would work in theory”.

The developed countries of Europe and North America have subsidised their agriculture for over a hundred years.  Such direct subsidies currently amount to the equivalent of almost a trillion United States Dollars annually in the countries of the European Union, and the United States of America is not far behind. At the same time they also provide market protection for their producers. Why?  Subsidies keep their farmers gainfully employed on their land, promote food security, minimize food costs and contribute substantially to their country’s economy which is not drained by the cost of importing all of their food.  Research has also shown that every dollar spent in agriculture is recycled, on average, six times in the economy which is more than that occurring in any other sector.  The high multiplier effect of agriculture in an economy results from the fact that food is a necessity for everybody and agriculture largely involves the rural poor who may be described as the base of the economy. It also results from the value added component of agro-industry that would not exist in the absence of agriculture.

Agricultural production subsidies, especially for local markets, cannot be faulted whether in developed or developing countries.  Similar subsidies are now an accepted norm in many other sectors including education, health, housing, water, et al. Why not agriculture (food production)? The problems come with the surpluses the subsidies tend to produce and the implication that countries producing such surpluses are more efficient producers than anybody else – a myth. However, when these surpluses are dumped on the world market at half of the actual cost of their production, the destructive effect on farmers in countries without such subsidies or market protection is worse than any terrorist bomb.  This helps to explain why there are mountains of food in storage in some countries while millions are starving in others.

The continent of Africa was a net exporter of food up to the time (1960s) that economists started telling the new popular leaders of emerging African Nations the same nonsense quoted in the opening paragraph.  They imported cheap, subsidised food for their masses at the expense of their local farmers who then added to their countries’ problems by vacating their farms and moving to the nearest urban areas in search of jobs.  In so doing, the African countries were drained of scarce foreign exchange – the imported food may be cheap but it still costs foreign exchange – and they were also saddled with the attendant problems of increased rural poverty and servicing the urban spread.  Africa, once a “bread basket” for the world, now has starving millions, imports more than half of its food and is mired in debt and poverty despite a wealth of human and natural resources.  

The exceptions to the foregoing, South Africa and Zimbabwe, support the argument that the African countries’ agricultural decline was a major cause of their economic problems and not just poor leadership and corruption as popularly thought i.e. before Robert Mugabe destroyed his country’s farming community. Please note that the foregoing has been documented by many researchers.

A related issue is that the farm gate price of food is seldom more than 50% of the market price. Handling, transport, packaging, storage, distribution and marketing of food can account for 80% of the market price.  This value added is seldom recognized by commentators discussing food prices when they target production costs.

All of this at a time when the United Nations has been promoting the concept that if you “give a man a fish you may feed him for a day but if you teach him how to fish you feed him for a life time”.  In other words if you “give a man food you may feed him for a day but if you help him to feed himself you feed him for a lifetime”.

When questioned as to “why they think that the developed countries can justify their heavy agricultural subsidies but the developing countries cannot”?  Economists have responded simply that the developed countries can afford it but the developing countries cannot.  There can be no doubt why the developed countries can afford the subsidies while developing countries cannot and are unlikely ever to be able to afford it.  One builds while the other bleeds.

Can developing countries (large or small) afford not to subsidise their own food production?  The answer lies in how we classify the sector.  Is it productive or social?  It is understandable why there is a difficulty in justifying subsidies of activities in the productive sector, including export crops, but food production and related food costs are so closely associated with the social sector and poverty that the classification and justification is de facto.  Besides, the reported comments can only apply where there is full employment in more productive activities than food production and this has not yet happened in any country – developed or developing, large or small.

Peter Webster

Note:  Peter Webster is a retired Portfolio Manager of the Caribbean Development Bank and a former Senior Agricultural Officer in the Ministry of Agriculture.

AGRICULTURE IS VITAL by Basil Springer

Leave a reply

“And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace for those who make peace.” – James 3:18

In last week’s column we beseeched the social partners to unite under the leadership of the new Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago. Now, we wish that the youthful energy in the new Cabinet of the twin island nation infuses the entire Caribbean. This is indeed a gargantuan task but let us make a start with the agricultural sector.

People are our most important resource and have to be fed. Agriculture is a science which guides farmers as they cultivate the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food and other products for local and tourist consumption. Agricultural goods can be grown for export, to reduce the massive agricultural import bill and contribute to net foreign exchange earnings.

Locally grown agricultural produce is more easily quality controlled and gets from farm to table in a much shorter time than imported produce. Many locally grown products reach the consumer at a cheaper price than imported products and selected products provide our full complement of nutrients.

Why then do we not have a comprehensive coordinated programme for agricultural development in the Caribbean rather than a piecemeal approach by territory. This approach has not produced a sustainable solution in the last 70 years since the Report of West India Royal Commission, also known as The Moyne Report, was published at the end of the second world war. Many billions of dollars of national and donor funds have been wasted.

Although not formally trained in agriculture science, I have been associated with the full spectrum of agriculturalists and the agricultural sector for my entire professional life and I am still involved in one way or another.

Having been trained as a Mathematician, Statistician and Operations Research scientist in Jamaica, Wales and at the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London, I interned as a Biometrician at Rothamsted Research, formerly known as Rothamsted Experimental Station, which is the longest running agricultural research station in the world, providing cutting-edge science and innovation for nearly 170 years.

The establishment of the Biometrics unit at the Faculty of Agriculture at University of the West Indies at St. Augustine Trinidad (1968) was my first professional assignment and it is still in operation today under the Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute. I was President of the Caribbean Agro-Economic Society, the Barbados Society for Technologists in Agriculture and am currently Chairman of the recently launched Global Business Innovation Corporation which encapsulates the key components of the Caribbean Food Business Innovation Revolution.

In addition, I was an avid vegetable gardener at least twice in my life, have been involved in many agricultural development consultancies and given advice to many post graduate agricultural students over the years.

Eat Bajan Day this year is on October 9. This is managed by the Graham Gooding Trust of which I am a Trustee. Quite a lot has rubbed off from these experiences and if I do not know any specific detail in agriculture at least I know who to ask.

My primary interest is in shepherding businesses to sustainable success. Agriculture is a business and my continuing interest in the sector is to contribute to its success at the enterprise, national and regional levels.

I propose a simple 5M business system construct as follows:  The Model (Idea/innovation) is at the Core (Corporate Governance);  The Money (outlay) provides the Stamina (Investment Finance); The Marketing (sales) is the Life (Marketing); The Methodology (shepherding) is the Growth (Operations); and the Mind-set Change (shepherding) inspires sustainability (People Development). The high inherent business risks in the agricultural sector are associated with the above five business systems.

Corporate Governance risks – 3: (1) there is little or no focus on management meeting culture to structure the foundation of the business; (2) failure to observe legal and environmental laws reflecting society’s priorities or industry mandates; and (3) deleterious impact on the natural resource base.

Investment Finance risks -2: (1) little or no focus on credit rating culture; and (2) low equity input by the entrepreneur in the business.

Marketing risks – 4: (1) little or no focus on customer centric culture; (2) no proactive aggressive market led sales and distribution strategy; (3) unrealistic sales projections especially for start-ups, re-births, spin-offs and scale-ups; and (4) unpredictable prices and markets.

Operations risk – 7: (1) little or no focus on profitability culture; (2) use of low technology; (3) variations in output due to weather, pests, disease and value chain logistics/timing; (4) praedial larceny; (5) lack of crop insurance; (6) outdated ICT and administrative systems; and (7) weak net cash flows.

People Development risk – 4: (1) little or no focus on productivity culture; (2) poor time management practice; (3) the lack of positive affirmations of passion, perseverance and patience among personnel; and (4) selection, training and motivation issues centered around family members and employees.

These 20 risks are among the challenges that have to be addressed as we take on the agricultural sector.

My firm belief is that there is no shortage of agricultural entrepreneurs in the Caribbean with the potential to grow the industry but we must establish an adequate user-friendly agricultural investment fund and secure the fund by a systematic shepherding process to mitigate the above risks as humanly possible.

Let us develop a healthy, robust agricultural community that lives right with God and enjoys its results. Let us do the hard work of getting along with each other, treating each other with mutual respect, dignity and honour.

(Dr. Basil Springer GCM is Change-Engine Consultant, Caribbean Business Enterprise Trust Inc. – CBET. His columns may be found at www.cbetmodel.org and www.nothingbeatsbusiness.com.)