THE AGRICULTURAL Produce Act is to be amended to provide the long-promised initiative against praedial larceny with the JAS as the primary implementing agency. Considering the mortality rate of similar moves we are less than sanguine about its prospect of success.To begin with, the JAS has not demonstrated its ability to manage such a wide programme. Too much of it for too long has existed merely on paper. Whether the prospect of this new involvement will effect a resurrection is a matter for hope.
Reality indicates that many farmers can be expected to resist any proposal to require them to pay a fee for a new service, regardless of whether or not it is manifestly in their own interest. Will there be any powers of coercion to rein in the recalcitrants? And how will this be applied?
The receipt book approach was tried experimentally by the St. Catherine Chamber of Commerce in the Linstead area a few years ago. Was that body consulted before the present initiative was formulated?
Praedial larceny has been a constant companion of agriculture in this country for at least a century, but in relatively recent times it has graduated from petty individual efforts to a well-organised business. It is this reality that poses a great threat to agriculture.
Under this new regime of praedial larceny the greater profit is in the marketing and distribution of the stolen products and we suspect that most of the stolen goods goes to establishments like produce traders, supermarkets, restaurants and higglers. Since most of these entities operate from fixed points and addresses we wonder if it would not have been easier to concentrate on that end.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
