A sharp exchange between We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) Member of Parliament Gobin Harbhajan and the Ministry of Agriculture has brought renewed scrutiny to the state of Guyana’s rice industry, exposing a widening gap between farmers’ reported experiences and the government’s official position.
In a statement posted on April 9, 2026, Harbhajan painted a dire picture of the sector, warning that “the rice industry is on the verge of collapse, and farmers are struggling to make ends meet.” He said rice farmers have been reaching out to him and Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, inviting them to witness “the significant losses and damage they are facing due to poor drainage systems,” adding that “farmers stand to lose millions.”
Harbhajan also raised concerns about persistently low paddy prices and questioned the government’s messaging on crop insurance, stating that “the ongoing narrative that rice farmers’ crops are insured is, in my view, misleading and amounts to a political sell designed to give farmers a false sense of security.” He challenged Agriculture Minister Zulfikar Mustapha directly, asking, “what concrete plans or systems do you have in place to assist the rice industry and bring real relief to struggling farmers?”
The Ministry of Agriculture, in a detailed response, rejected Harbhajan’s claims as “extremely misleading,” accusing him of either misunderstanding the industry or seeking “cheap political mileage.” Central to the Ministry’s rebuttal was its assertion that “to date, no acreage has been officially reported as lost,” noting that fields are still under assessment and that “any proper assessment can only be conducted after water has fully receded.” However, this response stops short of directly addressing Harbhajan’s broader claim of widespread field damage and farmer distress observed on the ground, instead focusing on the absence of officially verified losses.
On the issue of crop insurance—one of Harbhajan’s key concerns—the Ministry defended the programme, stating that a system secured under President Irfaan Ali is “in place and functioning, with 4,433 rice farmers registered,” and that previous rainfall events triggered payouts “even though there were no losses,” once rainfall thresholds were exceeded. While this counters the claim that no safety net exists, it does not fully resolve Harbhajan’s criticism that the programme may not reflect the realities farmers face or the scale of potential losses from flooding and drainage failures.
The Ministry also pushed back strongly on the issue of prices, clarifying that government “does not determine the price for paddy,” as Guyana is “a price taker in the global rice market,” influenced by supply from major producers such as India, Vietnam, and Brazil. It pointed to interventions including a $300 per bag subsidy in 2025 and billions in support for fertilizer, seed paddy, and pest control, arguing that these measures have helped drive production to record levels, with output projected to surpass 820,000 tonnes in 2026.
Yet, Harbhajan’s critique appears less about global price dynamics and more about immediate farm-level realities—particularly drainage, flooding, and income pressures—which the Ministry addresses only in part through references to infrastructure works such as “Hope-like canals” and ongoing drainage and irrigation investments. While these initiatives suggest long-term planning, the Ministry’s response does not directly engage with claims of current, on-the-ground failures in drainage systems raised by farmers.
The exchange highlights a broader tension: a government emphasizing macro-level performance, production growth, and policy interventions, versus opposition claims centred on lived experiences of farmers facing losses and low returns. As both sides hold firm, the central question remains whether official data and programmes are adequately capturing—and responding to—the immediate challenges confronting rice farmers across Guyana.
