Broken scales: Rice farmers and the false economy

Dear Editor,

Guyana’s rice farmers are once again staging public protest actions, battling despair as they face a dismal and unjust price regime imposed by rice millers, who now pay between $2,500 and $2,700 per bag—these numbers are questionable as protesting farmers in Region 2 are claiming they are now being paid $2000. These are not isolated figures—they symbolise the grinding reality of thousands of rural families whose livelihoods are being undercut by opaque market control and governmental neglect.

Last crop, government intervention added a small but symbolic $300 to the paddy price, recognising the hardship farmers faced. Today, even that token relief is absent. The silence from policymakers, the Rice Producers Association (RPA), the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB), and civil society organisations is deafening. It reflects a broader moral and institutional failure: the abdication of responsibility toward one of the pillars of Guyana’s food economy.

Attorney Jailall Kissoon, who addressed these very issues in the media, deserves commendation for reigniting public debate on this burning issue. But beyond lamentation, the nation must now confront the systemic dysfunction that has allowed this imbalance to persist. Millers’ unilateral control over pricing raises the question—are we witnessing market dynamics or deliberate constriction? The pattern is unmistakable: by forcing farmers to sell at unsustainable prices, millers shrink production, paving the way for future price escalation and profit maximisation at the farmers’ expense.

Government inaction in this environment cannot be viewed as neutral. Each cycle of crisis invites subsidised interventions that too often leak financing into the grasp of corrupt intermediaries and regulatory actors. Instead of correcting inequities, the state’s passivity compounds them—creating a revolving door of distress, relief, and betrayal.

It is here that President Ali’s constant invocation of “economies of scale” becomes both ironic and instructive. The president routinely extols the virtues of efficiency, productivity, and scale in agriculture and business. Yet nowhere is that principle more visibly violated than in the government’s own portfolio. Consider the glaring contrast: the ailing Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) continues to produce less than 80,000 tons of sugar but receives billions in subsidies, bailouts, and logistical support. Meanwhile, the rice industry—producing over 800,000 tons annually and driven by private enterprise rather than state control—must scrape for survival, denied even minimal price stabilisation support.

If “economies of scale” truly guided national policy, the rice sector should stand as the prime candidate for strategic investment. It already possesses the infrastructure, export market integration, and skilled labor to multiply returns. Yet in practice, state favoritism toward GuySuCo betrays a political calculus that privileges legacy, dependence, and patronage over sound economics and productive independence. This is not simply poor policy—it is an inversion of national priorities.

The time has come for the government to craft a coherent agricultural policy that addresses the rice sector’s structural vulnerability. That means greater transparency in pricing, independent oversight of millers’ export margins, and the establishment of a price stabilisation fund linked to production costs and international benchmarks. Such a framework would not only protect farmers but also reinforce Guyana’s credibility as a food-secure nation.

Rice farmers are not asking for charity; they are demanding fairness. Their labor sustains communities, fills markets, and contributes to regional food security. To allow them to be sacrificed on the altar of political neglect and institutional favoritism is to betray the very principles of growth and equity that the government professes to uphold.