C. Roy ReynoldsRECENTLY I had an almost surreal experience: The opportunity to sit in on a discussion not based on witch-hunting and preconceived notions. It was hardly coincidental that it was held by a resurrected Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs, and if that institution is not careful it runs the risk of becoming the vanguard for the reawakening of common sense and reason in national discourse.
Among the participants were Dr. Alfred Sangster, who chaired the event; my old friend Ken Jones, a British scientist whose name eludes me; representatives of several professional disciplines, including computer science and the Sugar Research Institute and, by no means least, the indefatigable Mark Brooks, whom I might dub the unofficial president of the "sick soil society".
The group deliberated on all aspects of the sugar industry but for me important though it might be to come up with solutions to the present dilemma in the industry, this was not the most refreshing aspect. It was the nature and approach of the enquiry which to me held prospects way beyond the parameters of a single industry.
Perhaps a brief examination of the Farquharson Institute is in order. Time was when under the leadership of the late illustrious H.P. Jacobs it was a strong voice in our public affairs. Of course the young generations know nothing of this antecedent and nobody is telling them. But the Institute was a successor institution to an earlier organisation, the Imperial Society, and herein lies a tale.
The very idea of an Imperial Society is a no-no in the post-colonial age. The gut reaction is to dismiss it as just part and parcel of the old system of colonialism, an approach far from the truth. In fact this organisation and the movement with which it was associated was often an irritating thorn in the side of the British colonial administration. It advocated for and championed a wide range of nationalist positions which were often regarded as radical. It was almost certainly among the catalysts which led the questioning in the dying years of the 19th century and the early days of the 20th of the appropriateness of our reliance on the British Privy Council and its law lords being the final court of Jamaica.
While I found the discussions on the sugar industry interesting I thought that Mr. Brooks' contention about the state of our soils was even more so. He contends that it is not only sugar that is being affected but almost every crop and predicts that if allowed to continue will be disastrous to production.
It is tempting for those who have led our post-Independence agriculture to dismiss Mr. Brooks as a quack and alarmist. But hold on, let us examine the matter more closely. Before this time it was undeniable that in many cases productivity was higher in a number of crops. It was a time when a combination of experience and local training dominated the agricultural extension and administrative system.
Operatives worked closely with farmers to develop things like soil conservation, organic manuring, crop rotation and other "low-tech", processes in consort with the view that the soil is a living and dynamic asset which had to be husbanded to achieve production. It was an approach which took into consideration the difference between temperate country and the tropical management requirements of successful farming.
But the new centurions who later took over were trained in the temperate climate style of management and tended to frown on what had evolved at the local level. So instead of introducing the measures which ought to have been additional to complement what was in place and working they discarded them. I well remember my old Farm School classmate Joseph Suah telling me that after completing a Master's degree at the Ivy League Cornell University in New York, and I might add, a near doctorate, that in administering an agricultural programme here he found what we had learnt at Farm School and on the job were what worked best.
So Mr. Brooks' contention was almost certain to have been greeted with ridicule by the now establishment. It doesn't fit into their calculations and their textbooks. But I have a conviction that not only is he right, but that it was inevitable that the soil should rebel against its abuse and neglect. Even your hair if treated every day with bleaches and sterile chemicals is likely to fall out!
It is in that sort of context that I think that we need to not only revolutionise our approach to the sugar industry, but as Mr. Brooks seems to be suggesting, our entire agriculture.
Nothing short of a real radical overhaul of attitudes and approaches to agriculture is likely to work, a melding of what traditions that evolved locally and adoption of appropriate techniques we have learnt from abroad is likely to work. It is not a matter of either but of both!
C. Roy Reynolds is a freelance journalist.
