The numbers do not add up Jagdeo!

May 17, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News- On April 27, 2022, a Demerara Waves report quoted Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo as saying that an estimated 3,500 persons who were not supposed to receive the flood relief cash grants ended up cashing in on the scheme. The Vice President is reported to have said that some 70,000 farmers received the flood relief cash grant.
So far no one has questioned how it is that the government was able to determine that 5 percent of those who received the cash grant were ineligible to do so. Nor has anyone yet been brought before the courts for fraud – it is an act of fraud to claim a benefit to which one is not entitled.
But even more appalling is the silence surrounding the total number of cash grant recipients. There is no way that there are 70,000 farmers in Guyana.
It is implausible for one in every seven residents to be farmers especially considering that there are more than 200,000 school children in the country. And, of course, not all farmers can claim to be affected by the floods.
The floods occurred in May 2021. According to the government’s own estimates, at that time the country had a total of 247,804 employed persons. Of this, 174,337 were rural based. Of the total employed persons, 12.6 percent were employed in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors. This would mean that about 31,000 persons were employed in the forestry, fisheries and agricultural sectors.
Even if we assume that 75 percent of these persons were employed in the agricultural sector, this would mean less than 25,000 persons were so employed doing farming. Since not all the persons employed in the agricultural sector are farm owners, it can be extrapolated that Guyana has no more than 15,000 farmers, if that much. Yet, we have heard that 70,000 persons received the financial cash grant paid to farmers.
A criminal investigation into the distribution of the flood relief cash grant should be immediately launched. The number of ineligible persons receiving the flood relief cash grant has to exceed the estimated 3,500 that the Vice President contends was fraudulent.
There were grave concerns over the distribution of the flood relief grant. There have been allegations that persons who were not farmers received grants, and persons who did not suffer losses also cashed in. Some persons were said to have bought motor cars with their cash grants.
Outside of a criminal investigation, a Commission of Inquiry should be immediately launched into the distribution of the flood relief grant. Those responsible for the exercise should be summoned to determine the criteria for deciding who got relief and the quantum.
Alternatively, an audit should be conducted to verify how many persons received grants when they were not eligible to do so. This would include both those who were ineligible because they were not farmers and those who fraudulently claimed losses which they did not incur.
But we know that the government will not commission such an inquiry or an audit. And even though the National Assembly cannot instruct political officials, the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Economic Services can summon them to provide explanations.
This matter is of timely importance because the government is once again set to distribute another tranche of relief, this time to hinterland households. Each hinterland household is expected to receive a cash grant of $25,000.
But G$1B in fertilizers is also expected to be distributed to farmers. But how many farmers will benefit? Would it be all farmers or would it be only those who are confirmed as using fertilizers and how will it be determined how much a farmer with less than 40 acres will receive as against a farmer with 400 or more acres?
The government is throwing goodies at the people in the hope of appeasing them in the face of the staggering increase in the cost of living. There is no strategic approach to the relief efforts, including cost of living relief.
The government all along wanted to dole out relief to farmers. Now, in order to appease citizens that it is not throwing money at its supporters, it is also offering relief to the hinterland households.
While it is accepted that poverty is most deep and pervasive in the hinterland, the majority of the population do not live in the hinterland. They live on the coastland and also need relief from the cost of living.
And if there is a need to cushion the effects of cost of living in the hinterland, then there has to be a clear plan as to who this relief will benefit since it is known that there are gold miners also living in the hinterland. Why instead of both the rich and poor receiving the hinterland grant, is it not confined only to low-income hinterland households?
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---