An Assessment of the Governance Structure and Coordinating Mechanisms for Food and Nutrition Security in Guyana
With the technical support of:
i An Assessment of the Governance Structure and Coordinating Mechanisms for Food and Nutrition Security in Guyana
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Georgetown, 2017
ii
Table of Contents Page List of Tables ii List of Figures ii Acknowledgements ii Acronyms iii Forward 1 Key Findings 3
1. Conceptual Framework of the Study…………………………………...... 5 1.1 Framework for Governance for Food and Nutrition Security…….……………………… 5
2. Economic and Social Situation and Political Leadership Perspectives on FNS in Guyana……………………………………………………………………………………. 10 2.1 Political Leadership Perspectives……………………………………………………….. 10 2.2 The Economic and Social Situation in Guyana…………………………………………. 11 2.2.1 Food and Nutrition Security Status……………………………………...... 12 2.2.2 Rural-Hinterland Development…………………………………………...... 20
3. Existing Institutional Structures and Resources for Implementing FNS Strategies, Policies and Programs in Guyana……………………………………………… 25 3.1 Legislative and Institutional Agencies………………………………………………….. 25 3.2 Operations, Decentralization and Participation………………………………………… 28
4. Analysis of the Implementation Process of Guyana’s FNS Strategy……………………. 30 4.1 The Food and Nutrition Security Strategy………………………………………………. 30 4.2 Implementation of the FNSS……………………………………………………………... 30
5. The Main Public Policies under the FNS Strategy & Monitoring and Evaluation Systems in Place for Evidence-Based Decision Making………………………………. 38 5.1 Programs and Policies that deal with FNS……………………………………………….. 38 5.2 Global, Hemispheric, and Regional Mandates and Domestic FNS Policies……………... 41
6. Synthesis of Main Findings and Recommendations………………………………………. 44 6.1 Synthesis of Main Findings……………………………………………………………… 44 6.2 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………….. 47
5. Summary and Conclusions……………………………………………………………...... 49
References………………………………………………………………………………...... 50
List of Tables Table 1: Poverty Trends in Guyana, 1992-2006 (Selected Years)……………………………… 16 Table 2: Poverty Trends at the Regional Level in Guyana, 1992-2006 (Selected Years)……... 17 Table 3: Guyana Income Distribution between 1992 and 2006………………………………… 17 Table 4: Top Six Leading Causes of Death in Guyana (Selected Years)……………………… 19 Table 5: Children (< 5 years) Nutrition/Health Status (%)…………………………………….. 19
iii
Table 6: Hazard Matrix (Scale 1-5, with 5 the most severe)…………………………………… 20 Table 7: Guyana’s Hinterland Areas…………………………………………………………… 22 Table 8: Urban-Rural Areas by Regions and Population………………………………………. 22 Table 9: Summary of Goals, Objectives and Activities of Guyana’s FNSS…………………… 31 Table 10: Implementation Score Card, 2011-2013, of Guyana’s FNSS...……………………... 33 Table 11: Implementation Status, 2011-2015, of Goal 3, Guyana FNSS……………………… 34
List of Figures Figure 1: Key Influences on Food and Nutrition Security Status………………………………. 5 Figure 2: Guyana Governance Indicators, 2010 and 2015 (Percentile Rank)………………… 9 Figure 3: Guyana Food Calorie Availability, 1990-2011……………………………………… 13 Figure 4: Guyana Food Production Indices, 1990-2013 (2004-06=100)……………………... 14 Figure 5: Guyana Food Imports, 1990-2013 ($US ’000)……………………………………… 14 Figure 6: Real GDP Growth, 1990-2015 (1988=100)………………………………………… 15 Figure 7: Guyana—Prevalence of Undernourishment, 1990-2016 (3-year averages)………... 18 Figure 8: Regions of Guyana and Population Distribution…………………………………… 21 Figure 9: Food and Nutrition Security Implementation Framework…………………. 31
iv
Acknowledgements
This publication is based on research conducted on Guyana’s existing food and nutrition security (FNS) situation. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) expresses gratitude to the lead researcher and author, Tigerjeet Ballayram (PhD) for the depth of his analysis of the socio-economic and political factors and indicators that underpin food and nutrition insecurity in the country. His collective recommendations serve to reinforce that FNS is critical to national development and to also provide a clear outline for advancing governance of FNS in Guyana.
A debt of gratitude is also owed to several persons for their inputs and relevant information at a critical point in the preparation of this document. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Fransen Jean, Food Security Officer, FAO, Barbados; Dr. Teri Raney, Policy Advisor, FAO, Trinidad and Tobago and Dr. Odhu Homenauth and Dr. Raghunauth Chandranauth of the National Agricultural Research and Extension Institute (NAREI) of Guyana
Special thanks to the Government of Guyana for its cooperation and for its continuing partnership with FAO in ensuring food and nutrition security for all Guyanese. . Hon. Minister of Agriculture, Noel Holder and Permanent Secretary, George Jervis must be highly commended for their unflinching support and leadership in ensuring that the research which led to this publication was conducted without complications.
Special thanks to the lead members of staff in the Ministry of Agriculture including Ms. Aileen Nestor, Ms. Natasha Beerjit-Deonarine as well as the staff of other agencies and statutory bodies including representatives of the private sector and other interest groups.
Finally, gratitude is extended to Mr. Reuben Robertson, FAO Representative – Guyana and Ms. Angela Alleyne, AFAOR for their exemplary leadership and commitment to achieving the goals of FAO in Guyana.
.
Acronyms
v
ADP/AEDP Agriculture Export Diversification Project AFC Alliance for Change APNU A Party for National Unity APP Agriculture Policy Programme ASDU Agriculture Sector Development Unit CAFAN Caribbean Farmers Association CARDI Caribbean Agricultural Research & Development Institute CARICOM Caribbean Community CDIP Community Drainage and Irrigation Program CELAC Community of Latin American and Caribbean States COTED Council for Trade and Economic Development CRFM Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism D&I Drainage and Irrigation EU European Union FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization FNS Food and Nutrition Security FNSS Food and Nutrition Security Strategy GAP Good Agriculture Practices GAPA Guyana Agro-Processors Association GAPA-FG Guyana Agricultural Producers Association Farmers Group GDP Gross Domestic Product GLDA Guyana Livestock Development Authority GLSC Guyana Land and Survey Commission GRA Guyana Revenue Authority GRDB Guyana Rice Development Board GUYSUCO Guyana Sugar Corporation HFLACI Hunger Free Latin America and the Caribbean Initiative HIES Household Income and Expenditure Survey IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IICA Inter American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture LAC Latin America and Caribbean Countries LCDS Low Carbon Development Strategy M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MOA Ministry Of Agriculture MOF Ministry of Finance MOH Ministry of Health NFNSC National Food and Nutrition Security Council NGMC New Guyana Marketing Corporation PPP People’s Progressive Party WPA Working People’s Alliance ZHCI Zero Hunger Challenge Initiative
vi
Forward
The government of Guyana has indicated an interest in the governance of Food and Nutrition Security (FNS) in the country. This was demonstrated in October 2015, when the representatives of six key government ministries discussed with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) the current context in which FNS was taking place in Guyana. The Ministries and representatives included: 1. Agriculture - represented by the Minister of Agriculture; 2. Education- represented by a Minister within the Ministry of Education; 3. Governance - represented by the Minister of Social Protection; 4. Public Health - represented by a Member of Parliament; 5. Indigenous Affairs - represented by the Minister (who is also a Vice President) of the Ministry 6. Social Protection - represented by the Minister, and the communications advisor of the Ministry.
Some simple steps that can be taken to advance the concept of governance for FNS in Guyana were agreed upon. These include the way forward in which the requisite institutional arrangements could be put in place for the Guyana Food and Nutrition Security Strategy and the CELAC FNS PLAN of Action1. In particular, the Hon. Ministers in principle agreed on the following four-point road map to enhance Governance for Food and Nutrition Security in Guyana: 1. The Minister of Social Protection will brief the lead Minister of Governance in Guyana on the agreements reached in principle at the meeting of the Ministers;
2. A ministerial committee will be set up to review the existing National FNS Policy and Action Plan and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) Action Plan, to ensure that the mandates of the ministries of Social Protection, Indigenous Affairs and the other areas of priority of the new government are fully captured in these plans.
3. Upon completion of the review of the documents, the Ministers would be in a position to submit a Cabinet Paper for endorsement, following which; the expectation is that the proposals will be presented to Parliament for its consideration. This was motivated by the view that FNS and Poverty Reduction are the responsibilities of government, Opposition, Private Sector and Civil Society;
4. Finally, a calendar of activities will be prepared for the implementation of the action plan, with financing allocated by the government and other partners in 2016.
It was against this background that the Government of Guyana (GOG), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, agreed to colaborate on an analytical assessment of the current governance structure and coordination mechanisms for food and nutrition security (FNS) in Guyana. The assessment will include:
1The CELAC plan for food and nutrition security and the eradication of hunger by 2025, was adopted in January 2015 by 33 countries of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) (CELAC, 2014; FAO, 2014a). The Plan is based on the following four pillars: (i) Coordinated strategies to strengthen in-country legal and institutional frameworks for food security, facilitate trade, prevent food losses and waste, and promote food supply programmes; (ii) Timely and sustainable access to safe, adequate, sufficient and nutritious food for all people through conditional transfer programmes, creating income and employment opportunities and strong support for family farming; (iii) Nutritional wellbeing and assurance of nutrients for all vulnerable groups, respecting the diversity of eating habits; and (iv) Stable production and timely attention to socio-natural disasters that can affect food availability.
1
(i) A description of the socio-political and economic situation, and the ideas of the political leadership (both of the governing and opposition parties) regarding FNS, agriculture and territorial (rural- hinterland) development; (ii) A description of the existing institutional structures for implementing FNS policies and programs, with special reference to the specific institutions involved, human, administrative and financial resources capabilities, and the participation and inclusion of civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders; (iii) An analysis of the implementation process of the Guyana FNS Strategy (2011-2020), with particular focus on the state of governace reflected in the document; (iv) An analysis of the current state of development and the challenges of the main public policies under the FNS Strategy, and the monitoring and evaluation systems in place for evidence-based decision-making; and (v) Based on a synthesis of the main findings from (i)-(iv), make recommendations on the appropriateness of the current FNS Strategy and governance structure for addressing FNS and the Right to Food challenge, and enhancing the governance structure for implementing the FNS policy.
Reuben Hamilton Robertson FAO Representative - Guyana
2
KEY FINDINGS:
1. Food and nutrition security situation and political leadership perspectives on FNS
(i) Status of FNS in Guyana. Guyana has made good progress in advancing its food and nutrition security (FNS) agenda. The country is self-sufficient in food, fish and meat, and has met the World Food Summit (1996) and Millennium Development Goals (2015) hunger targets, as well as most of the targets in the other MDG Goals. Food energy supply in Guyana is enough to meet the population’s recommended food energy requirements. However, the lack of access to food and nutritional inadequacy are the main challenges to food and nutrition security. Poverty, low wages, high unemployment (particularly among youths), and long-run low average real economic growth constrain particularly rural households and those from the indigenous community to access adequate nutritious food. In addition, unhealthy food choices drive the increasing prevalence of obesity and its co-morbidities, namely, nutrition-related chronic non- communicable diseases NCDs), which are now the main public health problem in the country. Improved governance of the determinants of food access and nutritional adequacy is needed.
(ii) The political leadership perspectives. Political leadership of both the government and main opposition party in Guyana are favourably disposed towards agriculture and ensuring food and nutrition security for the citizens of the country. However, Guyana has an enduring historical legacy of a racially polarized society, which has harboured anxieties within the two major ethnic groups. These anxieties are accentuated by Guyana’s poor performance in several macro-level political indicators of governance computed by the World Bank. The issue of governance is therefore critical since the quality of governance at the macro-political level does shape a country’s policymaking environment, this in turn determines food and nutrition security outcomes. One way of alleviating this problem is to implement the Right to Food as a priority action. As a governance issue, the Right to Food has to be addressed more boldly and explicitly in Guyana. There are strategic activities in the national FNS strategy that, if implemented with due diligence will support the Right to Food in Guyana and contribute immensely to good governance for FNS.
2. Institutional structures for implementing FNS policies and programs. (i) Multisectoral dimension of FNS. There is a good combination of institutions with core mandates or with functions to advance food and nutrition security in Guyana. However, two factors constrain the ability of these institutions to optimize their contribution to food and nutrition security. First, many personnel in government ministries and agencies, are not fully sensitive to, or are even unaware of the multi-sectoral dimensions of FNS, and the fact that as a national goal FNS straddles many ministries and requires intersectoral partnerships and collaboration. Second, resource scarcity (financial and human) is a challenge to various agencies with respect to the implementation of the FNS action plan.
(ii) Local government. Decentralization of decision making for FNS through regularly elected local government officers has been absent for many years. A key vehicle for efficient transmission of good governance for FNS is a well-functioning local government—the locus of direct inter-face between decentralized government and beneficiaries of food and nutrition security and related policy interventions. Officers in Local Governments are elected from members of the
3
communities in which they live. The recent local government elections augur well for decentralized local-governance and participation. Additionally, the establishment of Regional Development Plans which the current government encourages and supports is a sign of good governance. Government should provide the financial, training and other support to ensure that the local governments function efficiently, and that local government elections are held as stipulated in the Guyana Constitution.
(iii) Civil society and stakeholders’ participation. More effective participation from beneficiaries of the FNSS should be fostered in two dimensions, namely: (a) public consultations and discussions of policy makers and their surrogates in conjunction with stakeholders and civil society who are expected to be impacted by new policies and public sector interventions; and (b) participation by stakeholders in the implementation and evaluation phases of projects. The first type of participation cultivates a sense of ownership, and provides legitimacy to adopted decisions and programs, while the second type builds inclusiveness, effectiveness and sustainability into the program cycles. Much evidence exists that the first type of participation has taken place in Guyana. Participation of the second type has been rare.
3. Implementation of the Food and Nutrition Security Strategy (i) The FNSS has been in implementation phase since 2011. Implementation of the FNSS has been facilitated by coordinating units within the Ministry of Agriculture, and annual implementation plans based on annual work programs of designated responsible entities. An evaluation of 47 tasks that were implemented during 2011-2013 revealed that 44 achieved a grade of satisfactory or higher. However, there were 38 tasks that were not evaluated because of insufficient information on their state of completion, attesting for greater diligence in preparing the implementation plans and monitoring and evaluating the FNSS implementation process.
(ii) Institutional aspects of governance. Most of the strategic activities in Goal 3 of the FNSS deal with the institutional aspects of governance, but only a few have been implemented because of budgetary constraints. The establishment of a multisectoral National Food and Nutrition Security Council in 2014 has added value to the management and coordination on the FNSS implementation process. However, this is only a small part of a larger implementation framework recommended in the FNSS which has not yet been implemented.
4
CHAPTER 1
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY
1.1 Framework for Governance for Food and Nutrition Security The World Food Summit of 1996 declared that FNS exists when all persons have physical and economic access to safe, healthy and nutritious food for active and healthy living, and that they are not at risk of losing this access (FAO, 2008). This definition of FNS is operationalized in terms of four pillars, namely food availability, food access, food consumption/nutritional adequacy and the stability of these three components. By way of developing a framework for assessing the governance for FNS, Figure 1 contextualizes these four pillars of FNS within a multi-sectoral setting in which three core sets of influences combine to determine a country’s FNS status. These influences are: (i) Governance; (ii) National institutions and policies; and (iii) Global, hemispheric and regional mandates.
Figure 1: Key Influences on Food and Nutrition Security Status.
Source: Author’s construct.
5
(i) Governance There is a growing awareness that governance is a key underlying determinant of FNS (FAO, 2015a; 2014a; 2011; Candel, 2014). This is motivated by continuing FNS challenges both at the global and national levels, despite decades of technical and prescriptive efforts, and numerous commitments by governments and development partners at international, regional and national levels. Against this background, there is considerable consensus that understanding the way structures, institutions, actors and power relations interact in an evolving context, is an important dimension for effectively advancing the FNS agenda in countries.
FAO defines governance for FNS as the set of political relationships from which the various levels and sectors of society and government interact to adopt agreements that define and regulate the food system for achieving nutritional well-being and eradicating hunger and malnutrition (FAO, 2015a). From this perspective, governance is a political process that exists at three distinct levels, namely, the political, policy and institutional levels. At the political level good governance is reflected in fairness, consensus-building, strengthening of capacity, and equal access to information. At this level, good governance is the effective delivery of basic public goods that the citizenry can reasonably expect from a democratic state. At the policy level, good governance requires effective and appropriate regulatory frameworks that are expressed as legislation, strategy, action plans or public policies. Finally, good governance requires institutions that have the responsibility to organise, structure, and coordinate the actors among different organisations, communities, individuals sectors and stakeholders to promote more effective political processes and ensure implementation of public policies.
Further, good governance for FNS embraces several principles: The regulatory and implementation framework that drives the food system represents the agreements achieved by different sectors of society acting on representation of public interest; The PANTHER principles2 which guarantee the Right to Food that underpin the governance for FNS, namely, Participation, Accountability, Non-discrimination, Transparency, Human dignity, Empowerment, Rule-of-law ; Good governance for FNS requires an integrated, inclusive and holistic approach that coordinates the actions of different sectors, stakeholders, institutions and policies, thus creating a framework of trust, coherence and multi-sectoral and institutional collaboration dedicated to achieving FNS goals; Good governance is both a goal as well as a means to the goal of attaining good governance. That is, the process of building good governance needs to establish neutral forums and platforms in which all sectors and stakeholders of society are included in building a shared vision that drives the process of good governance; and Good governance takes a whole-of-society perspective, involving strengthening and empowering non-state as well as state actors. This often involves rethinking and reformulating the roles of the public and private sectors (“re-weaving the fabric of governance”), and reallocating functions, roles and responsibilities accordingly (FAO, 2014a).
The FAO literature suggests a general consensus on cross-cutting functions and principles for any governance mechanism to ensure effectiveness while promoting a rights-based approach. The principles are participation, transparency, accountability and equity, and the functions are inter-agency coordination,
2 For an elaboration of the PANTHER principle and Right to Food, see http://www.fao.org/righttofood/about-right- to-food/human-right-principles-panther/en/.
6 monitoring and evaluation (FAO, 2014a). Participation has two dimensions, namely, (a) public consultations and discussions of policy makers and their surrogates in conjunction with stakeholders and civil society who are expected to be impacted by new policies and public sector interventions; and (b) participation by stakeholders in the implementation and evaluation phases of projects. The first type of participation cultivates a sense of ownership, and provides legitimacy to adopted decisions and programs, while the second type builds inclusiveness, effectiveness and sustainability into the program cycles.
Transparency is antithetical to secrecy in public transactions (except where specified by law), encourages communication between stakeholders and officials, and enables citizens to scrutinise and assess all aspects of government’s business to uncover wrong-doing and protect citizens’ rights. Transparency is a pre-requisite for accountability, which in turn requires that government officials are responsible to citizens. Equity means that all citizens should be treated justly and without partiality; that no group, or race, or religion, or class should be discriminated against or given special privileges. As mentioned earlier, FNS is a multi-sectoral issue, and therefore requires inter-agency coordination, or a mechanism to coordinate a large number of stakeholders and decision-making bodies to advance the food and nutrition security agenda. This type of coordination is required both at the national and regional/decentralization levels. Finally, monitoring and evaluation is a management tool to maximize impact, prioritize resource use and improve decision-making processes.
(ii) National Institutions and Policies. Figure 1 demonstrates the imperative of a multi-sectoral approach in which several government ministries, with relevant policies and direct access to national resources, have critical collaborative roles in contributing to the final food and nutrition security status of a country. For example, food that is consumed is first made available through domestic production and food imports, the responsibilities for which reside in the ministries of agriculture (agricultural investments, incentives, markets, etc.), trade (tariffs, licenses, food safety, etc.), and finance (exchange rates, food import incentives/disincentives), respectively. However, the extent to which households are able to access this food depends on their socio-economic status, the food distribution system and food prices. Here, several ministries feature prominently—social protection (e.g., social-safety nets, especially for those persons vulnerable to food insecurity), labour and education (minimum wage guidelines, employment, certification, skills training, etc.), transport (infrastructure/distribution networks), youth and culture (youth employment/education/training), natural resources (access to water, land, forestry, fisheries, etc.), and finance (price-interest-rate policies, budgetary allocations, etc.).
Food choices and intakes (diets and food consumption) are the most immediate factors that impact on nutrition, which in turn significantly determine health status. While the Health Ministry usually has the mandate for a country’s health outcomes, good nutrition also depends on access to adequate and nutritious foods, the types of foods that are available, food preferences and quality of diets, food preparation practices, and nutrition education—all of which straddle several sectors and ministries.
Finally, the issue of stability as a pillar of food and nutrition security is a cross-cutting component to ensure that there is some degree of regularity in the other three pillars. The stability pillar is particularly cognizant of the impacts of exogenous shocks on the other three pillars. In this regard, stability seeks to
7 build resilience in the food system against shocks (such as volatilities in the world economy, natural disasters, etc.), trends and seasonality. It eschews situations such as food shortages or food gluts; high volatility in domestic and international food prices; highly skewed distribution of income, high unemployment rates, and other factors that affect households and individual’s food access; and food consumption/utilization patterns that reflect unhealthy food choices with dire consequences on nutrition and health outcomes. Again, addressing these issues is not the remit of a single ministry, but rather require multi-sectoral partnerships among several government ministries.
Two points must be emphasized regarding the conceptualization advanced in Figure 1.1. First, it recognizes that government ministries do have specific core mandates. Some, like the Ministry of Agriculture, has FNS as an explicit goal, while others, such as the Ministry of Communities, do not. Yet the latter provides critical services and functions, without which the achievement of FNS would be impossible or seriously compromised. It is in this sense that FNS is multi-sectoral, and transcends the prescribed remit of any single ministry. Therefore, the issue of the boundaries for the mandates and responsibilities of particular ministries become less of a contentious matter, if the ministries understand that food and nutrition security is a national goal that has multi-sectoral dimensions, and therefore requires collaboration among government ministries instead of operating as silos in pursuit of their respective mandates. Second, as a public policy issue, FNS cannot be achieved by a reliance on free market forces. Instead, it must be the conscious, deliberate decision by policy makers (the government) to set FNS goals so that agriculture, trade and the entire food system, can deliver adequate quantities of safe and nutritious foods to meet the food requirements of the population. In this regard, an inter-agency mechanism3 is required to coordinate the specific FNS activities of the different ministries, departments and agencies, towards the achievement of the national FNS goals.
(iii) Global, Hemispheric and Regional Mandates The final set of influences on the FNS outcomes of a country is its commitments to global, hemispheric and regional mandates. Guyana, like other CARICOM countries, has made commitments to several global, hemispheric and regional mandates, all of which exercise significant influences on the country’s food and nutrition security. At the global level, Guyana has committed to:
The United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals 2016-2030 (SDGs)4, launched in January 2016; The Global Zero Hunger Challenge, launched by the United Nations Secretary General at (Rio+20) in Brazil in 2012;
Guyana’s hemispheric commitments include: The CELAC plan for food and nutrition security and the eradication of hunger 2025, adopted in January 2015; The SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway adopted at the third International Conference on Small Island Developing States in November 2014; The Hugo Chávez Frías” Action Plan for the Eradication of Hunger and Poverty, adopted in 2013;
3In CARICOM countries with functioning FNS policies/strategies, these coordinating mechanisms are variously called “Food Commission” (Belize), “Food and Nutrition Security Council” (Dominica, Grenada, Bahamas), and other similar names. 4 www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals
8
The Hunger-Free Latin America and the Caribbean Initiative (HFLACI), launched in 2005 by the FAO; Among Guyana’s regional level commitments are:
The CARICOM Agribusiness Development Strategy, 2012; The CARICOM Regional Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2010) and Action Plan (2011); The Community Agricultural Policy (2011); and Lilliendal Regional Declaration of 2009, where Caribbean Heads of State recognised the need to enhance integration and a multi-sectorial approach for the achievement of a shared vision, goals and actions, working in strategic partnership with others.
In summary, the conceptual framework outlined above will serve as the lens for assessing the governance for food and nutrition security in Guyana. Through this lens, the assessments will consider the management of the environment in which FNS is being pursued in the country, including how institutions function, how global, hemispheric and regional mandates are implemented, the extent to which a multi- sectoral approach has been pursued and encouraged, and the existence or non-existence of policies that seek to address the critical FNS challenges of the country. Finally, the assessment will focus on good governance principles, including the PANTHER principles that guarantee the Right to Food, and any omissions of these principles.
9
CHAPTER 2 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL SITUATION AND POLITICAL LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVES ON FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY IN GUYANA
This Chapter provides a description of the current political, economic and social situation, and the ideas of the political leadership (both of the governing and opposition parties) regarding FNS, agriculture and territorial (rural-hinterland) development. 2.1 Political Leadership Perspectives Good governance at the macro-political level may seem unrelated to food and nutrition security at first glance. In actual fact, however, these issues do shape a country’s policymaking environment, and determine food and nutrition security outcomes. As an outcome variable, food and nutrition security is determined by multi-sectoral policies, and therefore straddles several government ministries. Hence, food and nutrition security is inextricably linked to the macro-political level, and the character of governance exercised at that level. The World Bank Indicators (WBI) of the state of governance show a country’s percentile ranking of six macro-political level governance indicators relative to those of over 200 other countries. Figure 2 shows Guyana’s ranking in 2010 and 2015. Figure 2: Guyana Governance Indicators, 2010 and 2015 (Percentile Rank1). 60 54 51 50 50 42 39 39 40 35 34 31 31 32 30 23
Percentile 20
10
0 Voice & Political Govt. Regulator Quality Rule of Law Control of Accountability Stability… Effectiveness Corruption 2010 2015
Source; World Bank (2016). 1Among over 200 countries. Notes: 1. Voice and Accountability captures the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media. 2. Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism is the likelihood that the government will be destabilized by unconstitutional or violent means, including terrorism. 3. Government Effectiveness is the quality of public services, the capacity of the civil service and its independence from political pressures; and the quality of policy formulation. 4. Regulatory Quality is the ability of the government to provide sound policies and regulations that enable and promote private sector development. 5. Rule of Law is abiding by the rules of society, including the quality of contract enforcement and property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence. 6. Control of Corruption is the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as “capture” of the state by elites and private interests.
10
In Figure 2, Voice and Accountability, Political Stability, and to a lesser extent, Regulator Quality, have improved in Guyana between 2010 and 2015. With respect to the other three governance indicators, Guyana’s rank has declined between 2010 and 2015. It should be noted that, with the exception of Voice and Accountability, all the other indicators are below the 50th percentile (World Bank, 2016). One of the enduring governance issues that Guyana faces is the close link between politics and ethnicity, which has taken expression in a historical polarization of the society along racial lines5. This has militated against the PANTHER principles of consensus building, inclusiveness; transparency; rule of law, and the practice of participatory consultative democracy. In turn, this has impacted negatively on economic development, and by extension, food and nutrition security in the country. An assessment of democracy and governance in Guyana in 2002 found that no ethnic, cultural, or religious group was formally excluded or disenfranchised from participation in the political, economic, or social life of Guyana (Smith, et al., 2002). However, the same study found that “the use of race as a political marker has allowed it to become a destructive tool of exclusion” with “parties prey[ing] on racial differences, fear of deprivation, histories of victimization and ethnic insecurity to appeal to the basest instincts of Guyanese society” (Smith, et al., 2002:9). A more recent United States Agency for International Development (USAID) study on human rights and democracy in Guyana reached a similar conclusion: “The links between politics and ethnicity fuelled accusations against the PPP/C government6 of exclusion of Guyanese of African descent from access to state resources. The PPP/C for its part now accuses the coalition government of ethnic victimization. Both realities highlight the challenges of governing an ethnically charged society and the burden placed on the state to ensure equity and fairness.” (USAID, 2016).
The issues raised here and the information that is conveyed in Figure 1, highlight the need for the political leadership of both the government and the opposition parties in Guyana to work harder to achieve the PANTHER principles for good governance for food and nutrition security. While consensus-building and inclusion have been difficult to achieve at the macro-political level, this has been much easier at the regional levels, facilitated by familiarity, and based on personal relationships and trust (social capital), made easier by the urgency of wanting improvements and enhanced living standards (USAID, 2016). The leadership of both the government and main opposition party in Guyana have demonstrated favourable dispositions towards achieving food and nutrition security in the country (Holder, 2015; 2016; MOA, 2011; MOA, 2013a). They both recognize the importance of agriculture, and by extension food and nutrition security, to national development: agriculture contributes about 20% of GDP; accounts for more than 33% of the country’s employment. About 40% of Guyana’s export earnings come from agriculture; and the sector gets on average 11% of the annual national budgetary allocation (MOA, 2011; 2013a).
2.2 The Economic and Social Situation in Guyana High real growth rates in Guyana over the 1991-97 and 2006-15 periods were instrumental in the country’s progress towards meeting several of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). With respect to MDG-1, Guyana is one of only three other CARICOM countries that met both the World Food Summit (1996) and MDG (2000) hunger targets of halving the absolute number and proportion of persons who
5The two major ethnic groups in Guyana are Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese currently constituting, respectively, 29.2 percent and 39.8 percent of the population. 6 The People’s Progressive Party-Civic (PPP-C) was in government from 1992-2015, and lost the national general elections to a coalition of A Party for National Unity and the Alliance for Change (APNU-AFC) in May 2015.
11 suffered from hunger between 1990 by 2015. The country also met targets in five of the other MDGs, and made significant progress in MDG-2 and MDG-6.
Guyana’s Performance in Meeting the MDGs MDGs/Targets Status MDG-1-Target 1.C: Achieved both the WFS and Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger MDG hunger targets MDG-2 Target 2.A: Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to Significant progress made complete a full course of primary schooling MDG-3-Target 3.A: Achieved—in both primary Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and & secondary schools in all levels of education no later than 2015 MDG-4 Target 4.A: Achieved in 2008 Reduce by two thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate MDG-5-Target 5.A: Achieved in 2008 Reduce by three quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio MDG-5-Target 5.B: Achieved in 2008 Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health MDG-6-Target 6.A: Significant progress made Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS Target 6.B: Achieved Achieve, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it Target 6.C: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major Significant progress made diseases MDG-7: Target 7.A: Achieved with Low Carbon Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and Development Strategy programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources Target 7.C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe Achieved drinking water and basic sanitation MDG- 8: Develop a global partnership for development Achieved Source: GOG, 2014; www.un.org/gy (April 2014).
2.2.1 Food and Nutrition Security Status Guyana is currently a net exporter of food, and is self-sufficient in rice, meat, fish, roots, tubers and fresh vegetables (MOA, 2011; 2013). Despite these achievements, the country still faces several pressing food and nutrition insecurity challenges, including: high levels of poverty, unemployment, low wages; low and uneven economic growth; unhealthy diets leading to increasing prevalence of chronic nutrition-related chronic diseases; and stability issues related to climate change and changes in the world economy. These issues are elaborated in the following sub-sections. Food Availability
(a) Food Energy Availability Figure 3 shows food energy, fats, sugars/sweeteners and protein availability in Guyana for selected time-intervals. Between 2000 and 2014 average food energy availability was on average 19.3 percent above recommended population food goals (RPFG). In terms of the macronutrients availability relative to RPFGs, there was a deficit of 19 percent of fats on average over the 1990-95 period, and since 2000, then just enough to meet RPFGs. Between 1990 and 1995, there was a protein deficit on average of 13 percent, and
12 since then, just enough to meet RPFGs. Sugars and sweeteners, a major source of carbohydrate, have been on average 106 percent of RPFGs since 1990 (Figure 4, Panels 1-4). The excess of food energy availability over RPFG must be interpreted with caution. There are several reasons why food may be available and yet people go hungry: a) Firstly, food availability is not synonymous with food consumption. Food availability does not account for losses at the household level (during storage, preparation and cooking, as plate-waste or quantities fed to domestic animals and pets, or thrown away). b) Secondly, poverty and income inequality constrain food accessibility in poor households. These households often have lower food expenditures even though they spend a larger proportion of their incomes on food compared to higher-income households (Drewnowski and Specter, 2004).
Figure 3: Guyana Food Calorie Availability, 1990-2011.
Source: FAOSTAT (www.fao.org; accessed July 2016).
(b) Food Production and Imports The two main sources of food availability in Guyana are domestic production and food imports. Figure 4 shows that the food production index have been fairly stable around base-year level in 2000-08 periods, but has been increasing since 2009. Food imports were fairly stable and relatively low during the early 1990s. Currently, food imports into Guyana are in excess of $US 273 million (Figure 5), and has been increasing at 11 percent annually since 1992.
Figure 4: Guyana Food Production Index, 1990-2013 (2004-06=100).
13
140 120
100
06=100 - 80 60 40
20 Index (%) 2004(%) Index 0
Source: World Bank (www.worldbank.org; accessed August, 2016)
Figure 5: Guyana Food Imports, 1990-2013 ($US000). 300000 272826 250000 243603 214323 200000 189528 150000 140587 121154 118777 $US Million $US 100000 89611 58495 81745 50000 37187 44501 0
Source: FAOSTAT (www.fao.org; accessed August 2016).
Food Access
Food access is a key food and nutrition security problem in Guyana. It is linked to poverty and depends on disposable household income, food prices, the food distribution network and other factors. Macroeconomic factors (economic growth, the general food-price index, and the general health of the economy), and exogenous factors (adverse changes in the world economy and natural disasters), also exert major impacts on Guyanese households’ access to food.
(a) Economic Growth Performance
14
Figure 6 shows the average rate of real GDP growth in Guyana over the period 1990-2015. From 1991 to 1997, the high growth years, real GDP grew at an average of 7.1 percent annually. This was a period of an IMF-sponsored Economic Recovery Program (ERP), key elements of which included: (i) liberalisation of the exchange and trade system; (ii) removal of price controls and subsidies; (iii) removal of restrictions on capital flows; and, (iv) reforms in tax policy and administration. The next eight years were particularly disappointing, with cumulative GDP growth of only 3.5 percent, and averaging less than one percent annually over the period. However, economic growth returned in 2006, and has held a fairly steady rate of 4.4 percent annually since then.
Figure 6: Real GDP Growth, 1990-2015 (1988=100) Aver. Real GDP Growth 10 1991-1997 = 7.1% 1998-2005 = 0.4 % 2006-2015 = 4.4 %
5 Percent 0
GDP Growth -5
Source: World Bank (www.worldbank.org; accessed, August, 2016).
According to the current World Bank classification, Guyana was a lower middle income between 2004 and 2014, and graduated to upper middle income country in 2015. During 1990-2007 real per capita income averaged $US 717, and increased to US$ 994 and US$ 3181, respectively, over the periods 1998- 05 and 2006-2015. In tandem with GDP growth, real per capita grew at 5.7 %, 0.3% and 4.1%, respectively, in these three periods.
(b) Poverty Poverty has been, and continues to be an enduring reality in Guyana. The Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES, 1992) was the first comprehensive survey on poverty in Guyana. This was followed by similar poverty surveys in 1999 (the Survey of Living Conditions, (SLC)), and in 2006 (HIES, 2006), which was the last poverty assessment conducted in the country. Table 1 reports on these estimates. In 1992 moderate and extreme poverty7 were 43.2 percent and 28.7 percent, respectively. Following the high GDP growth in 1992-1997, moderate and extreme poverty declined to 35.3 percent and 19.1 percent, respectively, in 1999.
7 Persons whose incomes cannot purchase a prescribed basket of food and non-food items are considered “poor” or in moderate poverty. Persons who cannot meet a prescribed basket of food items are considered “food-poor” or in extreme poverty.
15
Table 1: Poverty Trends in Guyana, 1992-2006 (Selected Years). Extreme Poor (%) Moderate Poor (%) Region 1992 1999 2006 1992 1999 2006 Georgetown 15.8 9 28.9 16.3 18.71 7.31 Other Urban 12.3 3.7 23.1 15.4 Rural Coastal 27.9 19.6 17.1 45.2 36.7 37 Rural Interior 70.8 88 54 78.6 92.5 73.5 National 28.7 19.1 18.6 43.2 35.3 36.1 Source: World Bank, 2002; GOG, 2011.1Urban Coastal.
The Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (I-PRSP, 2000), observed that over the seven years 1992 to 1999, Guyana’s GDP increased cumulatively by 36.9 percent, while extreme poverty over the same period declined by 10 percent, implying that a 3.7 percent rise in income was responsible for a 1 percent decline in poverty. Stated differently, a one percent increase in income was responsible for a 0.27 percent decline in poverty. Although this is a crude proxy for the growth elasticity of poverty (GEP), empirical estimates of GEP for developing countries range from 1.5 to 5, with an average estimate of around 3. This implies that a 1% increase in per capita income is associated with a 3% decrease in the poverty rate, and that economic growth is fundamental to reducing poverty rates (Bourguignon, 2003). This empirical finding was one of the motivations for the government’s implementation in 2002 of a comprehensive framework to reduce poverty (i.e., the 2002 Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP), and two PRSP Progress Reports, 2004 and 2006). Despite this ostensibly dedicated intervention to reduce poverty, both moderate and extreme poverty remained virtually unchanged at the national level between 1999 and 2006. Indeed, in 2004, a food and nutrition security assessment in Guyana (MOA, 2011), identified several food insecure and vulnerable livelihoods and groups, namely: (i) Subsistence farmers (coastal, riverain, hinterland); (ii) Small scale miners; (iii) Hucksters/vendors and fisher-folks; (iv) Low-wage earners (seasonal and temporary workers, especially in urban areas); (v) Loggers; (vi) Sugar-cane workers; (vii) Single-parent females; (viii) Amerindians; Street children; and (ix) Pensioners.
Poverty is higher in the rural, more-so in rural interior areas, compared to urban areas (Table 2). Moreover, compared to 1992, poverty in 2006 increased in Regions 1, 7 and 10, and, with the possible exceptions of Regions 5 and 9, the percentage point reductions in poverty over the 15 year period have been relatively low—only about -0.20 percent point poverty reduction annually (Table 2). In terms of poverty among the ethnic groups, in 2006 moderate poverty rates were below the national average among Afro- Guyanese (31.6%), Indo-Guyanese (30.0%) and the mixed population (33.7%), compared to 75% for Amerindians who live mainly in the rural interior regions of the country. Comparable moderate poverty rates from the 1992 poverty assessment were 43%, 33.7%, 44.7% and 78%, respectively (GOG, 2011).
Table 2: Poverty Trends at the Regional Level in Guyana, 1992-2006 (Selected Years).
16
Moderate Poverty (%) Percent Point Region change between 1992 2006 1993 and 2006 Region 1-Barima-Waini 78.9 80.1 1.2 Region 2-Pomeroon-Supernaam 55 51.9 -3.1 Region 3-Essq. Is & W. Demerara 45.8 40.1 -5.7 Region 4-Demerara-Mahaica 32 24.6 -7.4 Region 5-Mahaica-Berbice 54.4 42.6 -11.8 Region 6-E. Berbice-Corentyne 37.2 28.1 -9.1 Region 7-Cuyuni-Mazaruni 44.7 61.4 16.7 Region 8-Potarao-Siparuni 94.8 94.1 -0.7 Region 9-Upper Takatu-Upper Essq. 93.3 74.4 -18.9 Region 10-Upper Demerara-Berbice 30.9 39.4 8.5 Source: GOG, 2011.
(c) Income Distribution Between 1992 and 2006 the distribution of income, as measured by the Gini Coefficient8, improved, moving from 0.44 to 0.35 (Table 3). However, this improvement disproportionately favoured the urban areas where income distribution improved by 28 percent, compared to 11 percent and 17 percent, respectively, for the over 70 percent of the rural coastal, and rural interior populations. Moreover, the improved income distribution did not benefit the lowest 30 percent of income earners (PRSP, 2011). In particular, with the exception of income decile 10, and to a lesser extent income decile 9, the ratio of per capita consumption expenditure to the poverty line did not change between 1992 and 2006. In 1992 and 2006, respectively, the per capita expenditure of the third lowest income decile of the population was just sufficient to cover the basic poverty-line basket of food and non-food needs. More seriously, the per capita consumption expenditure, respectively, of the first and second poorest income deciles, could only cover 50 percent and 75 percent of the poverty-line food and non-food basket (PRSP, 2011). In terms of population income quartiles, the poorest 20 percent (Q1) and the next poorest 20 percent (Q2), needed 42 percent and 14 percent additional income per month, respectively, to escape poverty in 2006 (PRSP, 2011).
Table 3: Guyana Income Distribution between 1992 and 2006. 1992 2006 Change Geographical Areas Gini Coefficient (%) Urban 0.47 0.34 -27.7 Rural Coastal 0.36 0.32 -11.1 Rural Interior 0.46 0.38 -17.4 National 0.44 0.35 -20.5 Source: GOG, 2011.
Finally, FAO data indicated that 23 percent of the Guyanese population in 1991 were undernourished9, that is, were at risk of undernutrition, caused by lack of income to purchase food
8One measure of income distribution is the Gini coefficient, which ranges between 1 (one person gets all the income) and zero (income is equally distributed). 9 Undernourishment is an estimate of the number of persons who are food deprived, and are at risk of undernutrition caused by lack of income or other means to access food.
17
(FAOSTAT, 2016). Guyana has made good progress in reducing undernourishment, which is currently half what it was in 1991 (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Guyana—Prevalence of Undernourishment, 1990-2016 (3-year averages). 25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0 Percent 5,0
0,0
(d) Unemployment and Wages Wages and employment are critical to enhancing food and nutrition security. A recent study (FAO, 2015a), estimated that Guyana’s total employment was 21.7 percent, and youth employment nearly twice at 42 percent. Thomas (2014) estimated that over the eight year period 2006-2013, nominal minimum wage increased at a simple average of six percent annually, but real minimum wage increased approximately only one percent annually over the same time period. This is a great disincentive to work, especially as the HIES (2006) showed, that the first and second lowest income quartiles in Guyana needed 42 percent and 14 percent more income to purchase the poverty-line basket of food and non-food items.
Nutritional Adequacy
Like other Caribbean countries, Guyana is experiencing both a nutrition and epidemiological transition. The nutritional transition is characterized by a shift in diets away from locally grown indigenous staples (grains, starchy roots), locally grown fruits, vegetables, legumes, and limited foods from animal origin, in preference of diets that are more varied and energy-dense, consisting of foods that are more processed (including processed/sweetened beverages), more of animal origin, more added sodium, sugars and fats, and often more alcohol. This nutrition transition along with sedentary lifestyles then drives an epidemiological transition seen in an increased prevalence of chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs), even among the poor. These nutrition-related chronic diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, heart diseases, and some forms of cancers, have replaced undernutrition and infectious diseases as the major public health in Guyana (Guyana National Nutrition Strategy, 2011). Since the mid-1970s, NCDs have over-taken infectious diseases and rank among the six leading causes of death in Guyana (Table 4).
Table 4: Top Six Leading Causes of Death in Guyana (Selected Years). 2000 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 Diseases Rank Cerebrovascular Diseases 3 1 2 2 2 1 Ischemic Heart Disease 1 2 1 1 1 2
18
Neoplasms 4 3 4 3 3 3 Diabetes Mellitus 5 5 3 4 4 4 Hypertensive Diseases 5 6 6 6 5 5 HIV Disease (AIDS) 2 4 5 5 6 6 Source: MOH (2011; 2013).
Additionally, there are several aspects of NCDs prevalence in Guyana that should be noted (MOH, 2011; 2013): (i) Between 2001 and 2011, the incidence (new cases) of hypertension increased by 28 percent; (ii) The public cost of NCDs for Guyana is enormous: a. The annual direct cost of treating diabetes and hypertension—just two NCDs—is between US$7.2-US$10.8 million; b. The annual cost direct cost of treating cancers and cardiovascular diseases is between US$0.3-US$5.2 million; c. The annual indirect cost of all NCDs is estimated at about US$207.5, or 10 percent of the country’s 2010 GDP; (iii) In 2009, NCDs accounted for 72 percent of deaths, compared to 12.4 percent for communicable diseases and 14 percent for injuries; (iv) In 2002, NCDs accounted for 46 percent of disability adjusted loss years (DALY); (v) Between 2000 and 2004 the incidences of breast, prostate and cervical cancers increased by 15.1 percent, 14.6 percent and 12.9 percent, respectively; (vi) It is estimated that 51 percent of adults are overweight, and about 20 percent are obese. Female obesity rates twice as higher than their male counterparts. Obesity is a main risk factor for NCDs. The Ministry of Health, Guyana has located this NCD problem in unhealthy eating habits, sedentary lifestyles and issues related to food accessibility—poverty, unemployment, low wages, etc. (MOH, 2011; 2013). With respect to children nutrition, Table 5 shows anthropometric and health data for children under five years of age. The anthropometric data indicate that underweight (low weight-for-age) and wasting (low weight-for height) have declined between 1997 and 2014. However, although stunting10 (low height-for- age) declined in 2014, it has increased relative to 1997 and 2000 data. Anthropometric surveys since 1997 have revealed that approximately twice as many children from the interior were likely to be stunted and wasted (Bureau of Statistics-UNICEF 2000; 2006; 2014; CFNI, 1997). Table 5: Children (< 5 years) Nutrition/Health Status (%) Nutrition/Health Status 1997 2000 2006 2014 Underweight 11.8 13.6 12.4 8.5 Stunting 10.1 10.8 13.7 12 Wasting 11.5 10.6 7.3 6.4 Low Birth Weight (new births) 15.3 11.2 19.9 13.6 Mortality Rate (Infant) na 72 47 39 Source: Bureau of Statistics-UNICEF (2000; 2006; 2014); CFNI, (1997). Stability The issue of stability as a pillar of food and nutrition security is to ensure that there is some degree of uniformity and sustainability in food availability, access and nutritional adequacy. Guyana is not within the path of Atlantic hurricanes, but the country is vulnerable to droughts and floods that result from changing weather patterns. Because of its topography (Guyana is under the sea-level) sea level and salt-
10Stunting is a good indicator of the long-term effect of inadequate nutrition.
19 water intrusions along the coastland are a regular feature. Frequent and uncontrolled breaches due to unanticipated high tides adversely affect major export sugar, rice and other agricultural production. Moreover, unfavourable weather, such as prolonged periods of heavy rainfall or prolonged periods of drought, jeopardize the agricultural sector, which contributes in excess of 20 percent to GDP. Table 6 shows a hazard matrix by region and severity of hazard-types. The main types of hazards in Guyana are floods, droughts and sea level rise/salt water intrusion.
Table 6: Hazard Matrix (Scale 1-5, with 5 the most severe). Overall impact on Typical Typical lives & Type of Hazard Regions Damage Loss Agriculture Score Score Livelihoods Flood 1 to 6, and 9 5 5 Very High Drought 1 to 6 3 4 High Sea level rise/salt water 1 to 6 3 2 High intrusion Pest and Disease Outbreaks 2 to 6, and 10 4 4 High Invasive Species Not 2 2 Medium Determined Chemical Spills and Fires All 2 2 Medium Forest Fires 3, 6, and 10 2 2 Low Earthquakes Not 1 1 Medium Determined Tropical Storms and Fires All 1 1 Low Source: MOA 2013.
In 2005, Guyana experienced high levels of damage caused by excessive rainfall, which disrupted approximately 62% of the population and resulted in a total GDP loss of about 59.49% (PAHO, 2009). Between 1995 and 2000, loss to natural disasters was estimated at US$ 29 million; between 2001 and 2013, natural disasters damages were estimated between US$648-US$800 million (EM-DAT, www.emdat.be/database; accessed July 2016).
2.2.2 Rural-Hinterland Development
While close to 90 percent of the population lives along the coast, the majority of the indigenous population lives in the hinterland areas. Access to social services—such as healthcare and education; public infrastructure; and water, roads, and communications networks—are less accessible and generally are of lower or inconsistent quality in rural areas than in urban areas. Hinterland areas have even less access to sustainable employment opportunities, beyond subsistence agriculture, and residents are less likely to complete secondary education. Schools are poorly resourced and are often available a great distance from “neighbouring” villages so that students are required to board. Hinterland residents also have less influence over decision makers in central government, as they are far removed from the centers of power and influence.
20
Guyana is organized into ten administrative Regions (Figure 8), among which are hinterland, coastal, urban and rural areas. The hinterland areas in Guyana are Regions 1, 7, 8, and 9, with a combined population of 81,333 or 10.9 percent of the country’s population. Amerindians (Guyana’s indigenous people), constitute 65.7 percent, and Mixed Race 25 percent of the hinterland population (Table 7). In terms of land area, the four Regions cover 145,353 square kilometres or 68 percent of the country’s land mass. Region 9 is the largest of the Regions—about 35 times the size of Barbados. The Regions are sparsely populated with an overall average of 0.6 persons per square kilometre.
Figure 8: Regions of Guyana and Population Distribution.
Source: Guyana Population Census, 2012.
Table 7: Guyana’s Hinterland Areas by Regions and Population. Main Ethnic Group Area Population/ Hinterland Regions Population Amerindian Mixed (km2) km2 (%) (%)
21
Region 1-Barima-Waini 27,643 20,339 64.6 31.2 1.4 Region 7- Cuyuni-Mazaruni 18,375 47,213 37.2 40.9 0.4 Region 8- Potaro-Siparuni 11,077 20,051 72.3 16.6 0.6 Region 9- Upper Takutu- Upper Essequibo 24,238 57,750 85.9 11.2 0.4 Total 81,333 145353 65.7 25.0 0.6 Source: Guyana Population Census, 2012.
The coastal area comprises the stretch of land (including the islands at the mouth of the Essequibo river), along the Atlantic coast of Guyana from Region 2 through to Region 6 (Figure 8). It is the area in which 89 percent of the country’s population resides. The rural areas include villages along the coast as well as those scattered deep in the hinterland of the country. In 2012, the rural and urban populations were 73.6 percent and 26.4 percent, respectively, of the country’s total population (Table 8).
Table 8: Urban-Rural Areas by Regions and Population Population Urban Areas Regions 2001 2012 1. Mabaruma* 1 2. Anna Regina 2 3. Georgetown & its Suburbs 4 4. New Amsterdam 6 5. Rose Hall 6 28.4 26.4 6. Corriverton 6 7. Bartica* 7 8. Lethem* 9 9. Linden* 10 Outside the urban Rural 71.6 73.6 centres of Regions Source: Guyana Population Census, 2012. *These townships were established in late 2015 by the new APNU-AFC government.
Hinterland Development A review of the literature suggests that, historically, the promotion of economic activities in the hinterland were linked to sectoral plans such as for agriculture, forestry, mining, etc. Until the late 1980s, the hinterland regions were relatively inaccessible and had limited economic activities. Region 9 had a flourishing cattle industry but a 1969 civil rebellion halted the region’s growth and development trajectory. At Mathews Ridge, Region 1, bauxite and manganese were produced from 1960, but the company was forced to terminate operations in 1968 due to low international prices. Regions 1, 7, and 8 produced most of the timber for local and export demand. In addition, these have been the traditional gold and diamond producing regions of Guyana, characterized by small scale and low technology. Overall, however, the contribution of economic activities of the hinterland regions to GDP was relatively low from independence to late 1980s. With economic reforms introduced in 1989 that favoured market forces, economic activities in all four hinterland regions have increased significantly. Region 9 benefited from a road that liked the border town of Lethem to Georgetown. In addition, trans-border and domestic investments have been taking place in mega-agro farms, and the cattle industry, which was dormant for almost four decades following the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in 1970, is in a process of revitalization. In Region 1, a large-scale
22 international timber company (Barama Timber Company), was given a timber concession of 1.6 million hectares in 1991, and in 2013, another international company, Reunion Gold Company, found large deposits of manganese ore around the site of the abandoned Matthews Ridge Manganese. Commercial production has not yet commenced, although the company has made significant investments in the project. Similar types of large-scale timber and gold mining operations have been taking place in Regions 7 and 8. However, one of the closest evidence of a strategy on hinterland development is contained in Chapter 2411 of the National Development Strategy, 2001-2010. The strategy, inter alia, covered a wide range of activities aimed at advancing the welfare and overall development of Amerindian communities. In addition, the issue of hinterland development is incorporated in the Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS), launched by the Government of Guyana (GoG) in June 2009. The LCDS identified eight priorities of the government’s early focus (2009-13), and an additional five priority areas to be pursued in the second stage (2013-15), of Guyana’s transition to a low carbon economy (Office of President, GoG, 2013). Several of these priority investment areas are already directly impacting the hinterland regions, including but not restricted to: Hinterland Amerindian Development (Hinterland Renewable Energy; Socio-Economic Development, The Amerindian Development Fund & Amerindian Land Titling) Expanding the Digital Economy and Avoiding a Digital Divide (Fibre Optic Cable; One Laptop per Family, and Telecommunications Liberalization); Support for small and medium enterprises (SME), and Vulnerable Groups Low Carbon Livelihoods; Climate Resilience and Adaptation (including Hinterland Adaptation and Adaptation Readiness Program);
More recently, the President of Guyana has committed the government to a ten-point Plan of Action12 aimed at the development of the hinterland and the indigenous communities:
1. Hinterland Education Support Programme. 2. Hinterland Employment and Youth Service. 3. The Hinterland Poverty Reduction Programme 4. Hinterland Infrastructure Extension Programme 5. Hinterland Energy Development Programme 6. Hinterland Happy Household Programme 7. Hinterland and Indigenous People Lands Commission 8. Hinterland Public Service Provision Scheme 9. Hinterland Language Cultural and Sport Service 10. Hinterland Tourism service
Clearly, the future development of the hinterland regions, including natural resource use, scale of agricultural and other community development enterprises, infrastructural development, etc., will be guided by the LCDS, given the latter’s national scope and specific programmatic interventions already identified for the regions.
11The Chapter is titled “Amerindians”. 12http://www.motp.gov.gy/index.php/2015-07-20-18-49-38/2015-07-20-18-50-14/210-president-granger-puts-forward-new-ten- point-strategic-plan-for-hinterland-development (accessed 18 August 2015)
23
When the Guyana National Agriculture Development Strategy, 2011-2020 was launched, the then Minister of Agriculture had proposed the formulation of similar agriculture plans for the various regions. Since then only one such plan has been developed, viz., the Integrated Sustainable Agriculture Development Strategy for the Rupununi, Region 9, 2015-2020. The strategy has five components: 1. Food Security, Poverty Eradication, and Sustainable Development of Local Communities; 2. Incentive Policies and Institutional Development of the Agricultural Sector; 3. Agriculture Technology Development and Diversification; 4. Development of Agricultural Markets and Enterprises; and 5. Development of Infrastructure and Services in support of Agricultural expansion.
Rural Development In Guyana, the rural areas are along the coastlands of Regions 2-6, excluding the urban centres. These rural areas, where over 70 percent of the population resides, are essentially agriculturally-based. Historically, sugar and rice dominated the economic activity in rural areas. Over the years, non-traditional crops (vegetables, fruits, coconut, etc.), fishing and livestock became significant contributors to national output.
An IICA/MOA study in 1991 of 743 rural households in Guyana reported that 35 percent lived in moderate poverty and 30 in extreme poverty. Three reasons were advanced for this: Lack of employment opportunities in farm and non-farm activities Inadequate nutrition, poor health, lack of educational and other basic services due to poverty; Poor management skills and limited opportunities for training and other types of assistance. This state of rural economy was a reflection that most rural programs failed to achieve their goals, due largely to poor governance and other factors, including (La Gra, et al., 1993): (i) Poor participation of beneficiaries and implementers in project design; (ii) Failure to build sustainability in projects; (iii) Inadequate attention to market opportunities; (iv) Partial analysis of complex problems and systems; (v) Failure to mobilize all key stakeholders; (vi) Failure to develop monitoring and evaluation in projects.
24
CHAPTER 3 THE EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES AND RESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTING FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY POLICIES AND PROGRAMS IN GUYANA
This chapter provides a description of the existing institutional structures for implementing FNS policies and programs in Guyana, with special reference to the specific institutions involved, human, administrative and financial resources capabilities, and the participation and inclusion of civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders;
Background
Following the 1992 UN/FAO International Nutrition Conference (ICN)13, and the World Food Summit in 1996, food and nutrition security14 began to increasingly appear at national policy dialogues, conferences/training sessions, and planning meetings. Additionally, in 2001 the CARICOM Secretariat in partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, and other regional agencies15 develop a Caribbean Special Program for Food Security (CSPFS). This program was instrumental in the formulation of CARICOMs Regional Food and Nutrition Security Policy and Action Plan, which was a central motivation for countries in the region to develop their own food and nutrition policies in alignment with the Regional policy. It was against this background that Guyana finalized its Food and Nutrition Security Strategy in 2011. Prior to this, several policy documents and studies guided the food and nutrition security agenda in the country (MOA, 2011).
3.1 Legislative and Institutional Agencies
Many national institutions and agencies in Guyana have legislative authority with direct and indirect bearing on food and nutrition security. In some of these institutions and agencies (e.g. Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Public Health), food and nutrition security is explicitly stated in their core mandates. Others (e.g., Ministries of Communities, Social Services, Education), execute programs that are critical to food and nutrition security, but this is not stated in their core mandates. The key ministries16 that have significant bearing on food and nutrition security include: Agriculture, Public Health, Education, Social Protection, Communities, Business, Finance, and Natural Resources. The Ministry of Agriculture is the legislative body that has the mandate for advancing agriculture (crops, livestock and fisheries) in Guyana. The Minister of Agriculture is a member of the executive branch of government in the country of Guyana. The ministry formulates and implements policies and programmes in agriculture, livestock and fisheries, with the aim to enhancing welfare of rural populations and maintaining the integrity of agriculture resources. Several institutional agencies are under the Ministry of Agriculture, each with specialized functional mandates. The strategic plans of these agencies are aligned to
13 The NCN impressed upon countries to develop their National Plans of Action on Nutrition (NPAN). 14 The Summit is noted for the definition: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. 15 The Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute (CFNI), The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA), and the Caribbean Agricultural Research Institute (CARDI). 16The names of some of the Ministries were changed after the May 2015 general elections.
25 the overall national agriculture strategy. The agencies/Departments present annual business plans to the central government as a basis for annual budgetary allocations to conduct their work. Guyana's Ministry of Public Health (previously Ministry of Health), is the legislative body that is mandated to improve the physical, social and mental health status of all Guyanese. It achieves this by ensuring that health services are as accessible, acceptable, affordable, timely and appropriate given available resources. The ministry has several specialized departments for the overall health of the population. Within these departments are several units that have direct responsibility for the specific nutritional dimension of food and nutrition security. National Health Strategy for Guyana 2013 -2020 (MOH, 2013a), includes both long-term approaches aimed at improving food security, and short-term measures to provide nutrition education, micronutrient supplementation and improved care for pregnant women and children. The strategic multisectoral actions for food and nutrition security in the national health strategy include: (i) Strengthen the policy, planning and resource framework for improved nutrition in Guyana (ii) Improve the adequacy, diversity and quality of diet (iii) Reduce the prevalence of malnutrition and associated morbidity and mortality in all its forms
Guyana’s Ministry of Education is the legislative body with the mandate for advancing education of the population—from nursery/kindergarten through University levels. Successful educational achievement, academic or vocational, by individuals, enhances employment and income opportunities, access to food, and life chances of the individual’s future generation. In addition to the departments with responsibility for general education, including administration and planning, two other departments are critical to food and nutrition security, namely: The Technical, Vocational Education and Training Unit (i.e., develop skills set for the job market); and School Health, Nutrition and HIV/AIDS Unit (especially the community-based school feeding programs and healthy eating habits and lifestyle behaviour among school children).
Guyana’s Ministry of Social Protection (previously, Ministry of Labour, Human Services and Social Security), has the legislative authority to advance the economic and social development of the population through maintaining stable industrial relations, formulating policies, providing integrated employment, training and social and welfare services. Two departments with the ministry that are directly involved with food and nutrition security are the Departments of Social Services and Labour Administration.
Ministry of Business (previously, Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Industry), has legislative responsibility for supporting the development of a strong, vibrant and competitive business sector in Guyana. The ministry executes its mandate through the following departments and semi-autonomous agencies.
Department of Industry Department of Commerce Business Strategy and Policy Unit National Exhibition Centre (NEC) Guyana Office for Investment (GO-Invest) Guyana National Bureau of Standards (GNBS) Small Business Bureau (SBB)
26
Although not stated explicitly in its mandate, the Ministry of Business has a critical role in food and nutrition security in the areas of availability, accessibility, and nutrition adequacy. The Commerce Department within the Ministry issues licences for food imports, one of the two sources of food availability in Guyana (the other is domestic food production). The kinds of foods that are imported can impact on nutrition—high fat, calories-dense, foods high in sweeteners and sodium can drive overweight and obesity, a main risk factor in the prevalence of CNDs in Guyana. Similarly, the Department of Industry can increase food availability and enhance food access as it seeks to strengthen the private sector and provide support for small businesses and drive entrepreneurial initiatives in Guyana. Finally, the Ministry of Business has a critical role to facilitate the exports of rice, fish and non-traditional crops, the major sources of food and nutrition security of the rural population.
The Ministry of Finance in Guyana has the legislative responsibility to foster strong economic development by managing and maintaining sound public finances, providing a positive framework for public and private initiatives and mobilising inflows and resources. The ministry comprises several departments (e.g., Office of Budget, Project Cycle Management, etc.), and Agencies (e.g. Bank of Guyana, Guyana Revenue Authority, Basic Needs Trust Fund, etc.). One of the critical functions of the Ministry of Finance is to prepare the government’s annual national budget, which specifies, inter alia, the annual subventions to the various ministries, taxes, expenditures, etc. The ministry can play a significant role in advancing the FNS agenda through innovative financing (e.g., taxes on fatty and sugary foods; incentives to farmers to produce and market more fruits and vegetables; duty-free concessions for exercise equipment, etc.). The Ministry of Indigenous People’s Affairs is the legislative body with the mandate to enhance the social, economic and environmental well-being of Indigenous Peoples and their lands through collaboration, sustainable development and appropriate legislation, while at the same time ensuring the preservation of Indigenous culture and traditional knowledge. The 2012 Guyana Population Census estimated that the Indigenous population was 78,492 persons or 10.5 percent of the total population. Historically, the Indigenous Peoples have been the most marginalized in Guyana. The 1992 poverty survey estimated that among the Indigenous population, 70.8 percent were in extreme poverty and 78.6 percent in moderate poverty. These estimates increased to 88 percent and 92.5 percent, respectively, in the 1999 poverty survey. In the 2006 poverty survey moderate poverty among Indigenous people was 75.5 percent, which was more than twice the rates, respectively, for Mixed, Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese. They live in over 180 Indigenous communities located across Guyana but concentrated in a geographic space referred to as the rural interior/hinterland, mainly Regions 1, 7, 8 and 9. Given the special circumstances of the Indigenous Peoples, there is compelling support for a government ministry dedicated to their developmental, including food and nutrition security needs.
Finally, the Ministry of Natural Resources (previously, Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment), has legislative responsibilities to manage and maintain the integrity of the natural resources of the country. About 83% of Guyana is covered in tropical rainforests and within those rainforests, as well as outside of those rainforests; the country has significant deposits of minerals and precious stones. These resources are important sources of food and nutrition security for the Indigenous population, gold miners and large bauxite mining communities. The ministry has several agencies to execute its mandate, including: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC), the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC), the Guyana Gold Board (GGB), the Guyana Lands and Surveys
27
Commission (GLSC), Guyana Wildlife Commission (GWC) the National Parks Commission (NPC), and the Protected Areas Commission (PAC).
3.2 Operations, Decentralization, and Participation 3.2.1 Decentralization and Participation There are several levels of local government in Guyana established by the constitution and fleshed out in legislation. The ten regions of the country are each governed by elected Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs). The current RDCs were recently elected in May 2015. The RDCs provide services to their regions on behalf of the national government and play an oversight role for the lower-level elected Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDCs) and Municipal Councils. Their funding and staffing come from the central government.
Guyana currently has ten incorporated municipalities: Georgetown, Linden, New Amsterdam, Rose Hall, Anna Regina, and Corriverton, and recently (2016) established Bartica, Lethem, Mabaruma, and Mahdia. Municipalities are governed by Municipal Councils, which are elected offices headed by a mayor. The 61 remaining local authorities are NDCs, which are smaller groupings of villages. These councils and municipalities are ostensibly elected for a three-year term but only three local elections have been held since independence—in 1970, 1994 and 2015. Elections have not been held at the stipulated times because the political parties could not agree on the needed local government reforms (USAID, 2016). The local government authorities in Amerindian areas, are the over 70 Village Councils with similar powers to the NDCs. They hold elections every three years largely because that are more communal in nature. These Village Councils are headed by a Toshao (chief) and include many young councillors.
Given the multi-sectoral nature of food and nutrition security, several state institutions in Guyana can be expected to have a significant role to play. However, this will require coordination and a shared vision among the participating institutions and agencies to be effective. The primary actor is the Ministry of Agriculture, which has the most developed set of activities in food and nutrition security. In addition, the Ministries of Health, Education, Social Protection, Indigenous People’s Affairs have specialized departments with programs directly related to food and security. These were reviewed in 3.1 above.
3.2.2 Resource Capabilities and Availability There is a core set of institutions (described in 3.1) with staff complements that have been advancing the food and nutrition security agenda in Guyana. The resources available for implementation of the FNSS come mainly from the annual national budget, sector-specific grants, and technical cooperation activities of regional (e.g., CARICOM, CARDI, etc.), hemispheric (e.g., IICA), and international agencies (e.g., FAO). The overall annual budgetary allocations to the agriculture sector (for current and capital expenditures), as a proportion of total annual national budget ranged between 8-11% over the 2011-2016 period (MOF, 2016; MOA, 2011; 2013a). This is a fairly high proportion considering that there are 15 government ministries and over 25 statutory agencies for which budgetary allocations are made annually. With respect to Guyana’s FNSS, the 2011-2013 evaluation and information from staff interviewed for this study indicated that there are several resource challenges and gaps encountered by the various agencies with regards to the implementation of the FNSS action plan (MOA, 2014). These include: (i) Inadequate human resources to: a. Conduct training and assessments of existing safety-nets and development programmes; b. Support and promote capacity building to enhance small businesses and entrepreneurial skills; c. Provide legal and institutional support to small rural enterprises;
28
d. Provide support measures that improve access to basic needs in rural and marginal urban areas; e. Support small business enterprises to access affordable financial resources and Supporting activities to enhance income generation capacity of people with special needs. f. Empower communities to be proactive towards being responsible for their own health/nutritional status at all stages of the life cycle g. Promote the Food Based Dietary Guidelines
(ii) Budget and financial challenges: a. Limited access of vulnerable groups to adequate developmental funding and inadequate tax incentives for the promotion of value-added, cottage type industries; b. Insufficient support to agro-oriented business enterprises to access affordable financial resources c. Inadequate funding for the long term implementation of the Food Based Dietary Guidelines; (iii) Lack of infrastructure and access to markets (iv) Inadequate coordination among relevant agencies
3.2.3 Civil Society and Private Sector Involvement
Civil society organizations (including NGOs, social movements and community-based organizations), especially those representing the sectors of the population that are most vulnerable to food and nutrition insecurity (e.g., small food producers and landless farmers, agricultural workers, fishers and fish workers, indigenous peoples, women and youth, and others), can ensure coordination, ownership, effectiveness and accountability of initiatives aimed at improving FNS. A proactive effort to stimulate the participation of civil society so as to have a balanced representation in terms of constituencies, type of organization, geographic distribution, gender and age is of crucial importance. Smallholder farmers as entrepreneurs that invest and innovate are the basis for agricultural development that can effectively tackle poverty, hunger and malnutrition. The private sector therefore has a key role to play in developing sustainable agriculture and delivering nutrition for all people. As governments cannot feed people on a sustainable basis, they need to deal with structural conditions which constrain development while at the same time promote policies which will enable the private sector to continue to innovate and invest in the food and agriculture sector.
All of the FNS and related policy documents in Guyana benefit from consultations with representatives of civil society and the private sector. In particular, the FNSS and the National Strategy for Agriculture in Guyana explicitly identify both civil society and the private sector as important agents in advancing the FNS agenda of the country (MOA, 2011; MOA, 2013a). This was clearly demonstrated in the six year Rural Enterprise and Agriculture Development (READ) project that was completed in 2015 (GOG, 2015). The goal of the project was to improve the living conditions of poor rural households organized in 63 community-based organizations (rural small businesses; agro-processors; traders; subsistence farmers; fisher-folks; forest and agriculture producers; community cooperatives; etc.).
29
CHAPTER 4 AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS OF THE GUYANA FNS STRATEGY This Chapter describes in detail the implementation process of Guyana Food and Nutrition Security Strategy, 2011-2020, with particular focus on the state of governance as reflected in the document. 4.1 The National Food and Nutrition Security Strategy The Guyana Food and Nutrition Security Strategy 2011-2020 (MOA, 2011), is a ten-year plan which was officially launched in October, 2011, and will end in 2020. Its overall goal is to improve the health and well-being of all persons living in Guyana through enhanced food and nutrition security. The strategy has three main goals, 20 strategic objectives and 111 strategic activities aligned to those objectives and ultimately to the goals (Table 9). Goal 1 addresses the food availability, accessibility, and stability components of food and nutrition security, while Goal 2 focuses on nutritional adequacy. The twelve strategic activities of Goal 3 pertain to the institutional aspects of governance for food and nutrition security, with emphasis on multi-sectoral coordination, and managing implementation through a dedicated unit for monitoring and evaluation. The strategy acknowledges the government’s commitments to the FAO’s 2004 Voluntary Guidelines to support the Right to Food, and to meeting the hunger and food and nutrition security-related targets of the World Food Summit (1996), and the Millennium Development Goals (2000). The Guyana FNSS recommended an institutional framework for its implementation (Figure 9), which provides for participation by a wide range of stakeholders, including various levels of government (national, regional, local). At the highest level of the structure is the Inter-Ministerial Parliamentary Sectoral Committee, chaired by the Minister of Agriculture. Stakeholders from the public sector, private sector, civil society and the donor community will constitute a National Food and Nutrition Security Forum (NFSF). A National Technical Coordinating Unit (NTCU) will be responsible for coordination and promoting implementation of the Strategy across the public and private sectors in Guyana. Regional and Community Food and Nutrition Security Forums (CFNSF) will be constituted by stakeholders from government, private sector, civil society and the donor community at each of the ten administrative regions of Guyana.
4.2. Implementation of the FNSS The Guyana FNSS contains an ANNEX with an implementation matrix that specifies the expected outputs, responsible entities, and time-lines for each of the strategic activities under each of the three goals of the strategy. The responsible entities are: (i) Government Agencies/Departments (i.e., Ministry of Agriculture and other government ministries); (ii) Foreign Funded Projects/Programmes; and (iii) International Organizations/Agencies/Institutions. During the 2011-13 periods, the implementation of the strategy was initiated by a coordinating committee within the Ministry of Agriculture and a special Parliamentary Select Committee (MOA, 2014). This coordination function was taken over by a multi- sectoral National Food and Nutrition Security Council (NFNSC), which was established in 2014. One of the main tasks of this coordination was to ensure that the responsible entities identified in the FNSS implementation matrix include strategic activities (with associated tasks) of the FNSS into their annual work plans. This information was then summarized in an Annual Implementation Matrix, which was then used for monitoring and evaluation. Annual Implementation Matrices were compiled for 2011-2013, 2014 and 2015.
30
Table 9: Summary of Goals, Objectives and Activities of Guyana’s FNSS. Total Goal Objective Specific (Strategic)Objective Activities Activities Goal 1 A1 A1.1-Increase the capacity of farmers to efficiently and effectively produce non-traditional commodities. 7 To facilitate sustainable and A1.2-Provide training to farmers on appropriate pre and post-harvest treatments of perishable commodities. 5 stable employment- B1 B1.1-To promote appropriate post-harvest, storage, transport and distribution practices and encourage the 7 generating opportunities development of value added production. that would increase B1.2-Increase the availability of quality market information to stakeholders (farmers, exporters, agro- availability of and processors, agri-business investors, policy makers) and facilitate establishment and sustainability of market 5 accessibility to food, linkages. 49 especially among C1 C1.1-Designing and implementing a forest industry sector development strategy for Guyana including 5 vulnerable groups. small/medium scale hydroponics and aquaponics production. C1.2-Promote fishing as a livelihood that is socially desirable and financially rewarding. 5 C1.3-Rehabilitate, expand and promote the hinterland organic product export base 4 D1 D1.1-Improvement and expansion of Rural, Urban and Peri-Urban Training and Employment opportunities 5 E1 E1.1-To enable food insecure and vulnerable groups to adjust to effects of natural disasters and other 6 ‘shocks’ Goal 2 A2 A2.1-Review and harmonize food safety and quality regulatory and institutional framework to improve 11 To promote systems coordination and enforcement (information, education and B2 B2.1-To ensure that food made available to consumers is safe and wholesome. 8 communication/disseminati C2.1-Support the development and dissemination of information, education and communication material on 5 on) for use and appropriate diets and lifestyles. consumption of healthy C2.2-To reduce the incidence and prevalence of diet related NCDs and enhance their control and 7 50 foods for increased management nutrition of all Guyanese C2 C2.3-Micronutrient Deficiency prevention and control 5 and especially vulnerable C2.4-To improve nutritional status of school children 7 groups C2.5-To provide appropriate knowledge to school children on the importance of good nutrition for a healthy 3 and active life. C2.6-Strengthen the provision of nutrition education and counselling 4 Goal 3 A3 A3.1-To establish effective mechanisms to facilitate inter-sectoral dialogue on critical issues impacting food 4 Promote increased and nutrition security. institutional coordination B3 B3.1-Training in food security concepts and processes at all public, private sector and community levels, 3 and functioning for emphasising the issues relevant to their interests. 12 improved food and nutrition security. C3 C3.1-To establish effective coordinating of programmes and monitoring mechanisms 5
Grand Total 111 Source: MOA, 2014.
31
Figure 9: Food and Nutrition Security Implementation Framework.
Source: MOA, 2011:31.
An evaluation of the implementation achievements of the FNS strategy for the three year period 2011-2013 was undertaken by the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Unit in the Ministry of Agriculture. Of the 111 strategic activities in the FNSS, 47 which were implemented had sufficient information for the M&E unit to assign evaluation scores and implementation grades. For the other activities in the FNSS that were not evaluated, 15 were implemented by the Ministry of Natural Resources (information not available on these activities); 38 had tasks implemented but not enough information was provided on their state of completion by the implementing agencies for the M&E unit to assign a score; and 11 were not implemented. Of the 47 strategic activities that were evaluated by the M&E Unit, 8 or 17% received a grade of “excellent” (90-100% of tasks implementation), 30% received a grade of “Good” (70-89% of tasks completion), 49% were satisfactory, and 4% were unacceptable (less than 50% of the tasks were completed) (Table 10). These 47 strategic activities, and the other 38, which were not assigned a score, related to Goals 1 and 2 of the FNSS. The first goal, which deals mainly with improving food availability and accessibility, has been progressing well in terms of output and timelines. During the period under review, various measures were put in place to increase farmers’ production capacity of both traditional and non-traditional commodities. New and innovation ways of cultivation were also established and several trainings, demonstrations and extension services were integrated into the whole process of food supply. Other key areas of accomplishments included measures to improve marketing, storage, handling and distribution practices as well as post-harvest, transportation and the promotion and development of value-added production.
32
Table 10: Implementation Score Card, 2011-2013, for Guyana’s FNSS. Strategic Implementation Completion of Score Activities % Grade Tasks (%) Implemented Excellent 9-10 90-100 8 17 Good 7-8 70-89 14 30 Satisfactory 5-6 50-69 23 49 Unacceptable 0-4 0-49 2 4 Total 47 100 Source: Information adapted from MOA, 2014.
Goal two focuses on food utilization and stability and deals with measures that promote systems for production, use and consumption of healthy foods, through education, communication and/or dissemination of information. The Guyana School of Agriculture, for example, has included in its school curriculum in the year 2011, a course on Good Agricultural Practices. The school also commenced a new certificate programme in agro-processing in 2013, and there were various on-going farmers, agro- processors and food handlers trainings, demonstrations, workshops, etc., which supported the FNSS implementation process. From the health and education perspective, the Ministry of Health had initiated several measures to improve dietary and nutritional practices at the household level and which included proper dietary maternal and child care practices. Collaborative work was also engaged into the reduction and control of the incidence and prevalence of diet-related non-communicable diseases and micro-nutrient deficiency. The Ministry of Education was also involved in various activities to improve the nutritional status of school children through education and training, counselling and guidance, demonstrations and public awareness campaigns. The national school feeding programme highlights one of the major accomplishments of goal two. Several measures are in place to compliment stability or sustainability of the food and nutrition drive for Guyana. These include completed and initiated policy documents and sector reports and projects. There are also on-going training and developmental initiatives for all categories of stakeholders. Goal 3 focuses on institutional capacity and management of the GFNSS. This goal required an appropriate and functional institutional framework for achieving food security in Guyana. Information from the implementation matrices 2011-2015 is reproduced in Table 11 to show that most the institutional aspects of governance of the FNSS have not yet been implemented. During the 2011-13 period, only one activity under Goal 3 was implemented, namely, the establishment of a Monitoring and Evaluation Unit within the Ministry of Agriculture. No other formally established institutional mechanism was in place, but as indicated earlier, a coordinating committee of the Ministry of Agriculture and a special Parliamentary Select Committee initiated the strategy over the 2011-13 period. Responsible entities listed in the Implementation Matrix of the FNSS were however mandated to create tasks in their annual work programs that were aligned to the various activities in the FNSS Implementation Matrix.
33
Table 11: Implementation Status, 2011-2015 of Goal 3, Guyana FNSS. Goal 3: Promote increased institutional coordination and functioning for improved food and nutrition security. Specific (Strategic) Activity for Goal 3 and its Specific Status Output Objective/Goal 3 Objectives 2011-13 2014 2015 G3.A1 Activity 1: Preparation of legislation Legislative framework Not done- Not done-Budgetary constraints Not done due to budgetary To establish effective for establishment of a Food Security developed. Budgetary constraints mechanisms to facilitate and Nutrition Council, including a FNS Strategy Document constraints inter-sectoral dialogue technical working group to serve in reviewed and action plans on critical issues implementation of its mandate. further developed and impacting food and agreed upon. nutrition security. Activity 2: Establishment of the Not done- FNS National multi-sectoral council Not done due to budgetary Committee established Guyana Food Security and Nutrition Budgetary established, and includes a wide cross constraints and providing support to Council. constraints section of stakeholders. TOR approved FNS Initiatives. and Minister is chairperson. Activity 3: Establishment of the Not done- Technical working groups established Not done due to budgetary Technical working group Technical Working Group to serve Budgetary for all 3 goals. constraints established and providing the Food Security and Nutrition constraints support to FNS Initiatives. Council Activity 4: Establishment of a Consultation system Not done- No National consultation done. Not done due to budgetary consultation system for wide established to provide Budgetary Representation was made at constraints participation of the all stakeholders input into implementation constraints Regional consultation/workshop in informing the work of the Council, of Action Plan. held in St Lucia in June 2014. especially among national, regional, local governments in support of food security goals. G3.B1 Activity 1: Preparation of training Not done- Not done due to budgetary constraints Not done due to budgetary Training in food and communication materials on Training and Budgetary constraints security concepts and food security concepts and goals so communication materials constraints processes at all public, that all stakeholders are aware of the prepared. private sector and commitments and programmes community levels, Activity 2: Implementation of food Not done- Not done due to budgetary constraints Not done due to budgetary emphasising the issues security planning training at the Training plan and Budgetary constraints relevant to their national and decentralized levels schedule developed. constraints interests. linked to resources and technical Training in place support. Activity 3: Development of local Not done- Not done due to budgetary constraints Not done due to budgetary capacity to participate in the food Budgetary constraints and nutrition security planning and Relevant training and constraints implementation process. consultation at regional and community levels undertaken.
34
Cont’d
Specific (Strategic) Activity for Goal 3 and its Specific Specific (Strategic) Activity for Goal 3 and its Specific Output Status Objective/Goal 3 Objectives Objective/Goal 3 Objectives G3.C1 Activity 1: Foster co-operation Not done- Not done due to budgetary constraints FAO engaging inter-sectoral To establish effective among government, donor agencies, Budgetary dialogue for inclusive coordinating of private sector and NGO’s constraints coordination for food and Effective functioning of programmes and nutrition security governance the National Food and monitoring mechanisms. FAO secured funding from Nutrition Security Coordination Committee. CELAC for project (in 2016) to strengthen FNS coordination, governance, policies and capacity to end hunger. Activity 2: Enable co-ordination Effective functioning of Not done- Not done due to budgetary constraints Not done due to budgetary among departments at national and the Regional and local Budgetary constraints regional levels. levels of the Food and constraints Nutrition Security Coordination structure. Activity 3: Prepare a list of food and Not done- Not done due to budgetary constraints Not done due to budgetary Monitoring and evaluation nutrition security (FNS) process and Budgetary constraints system established. outcome indicators to be utilized. constraints Activity 4: Establish a system of Monitoring and evaluation M&E Supported Preparation of M&E Supported Preparation of collection, analysis and reporting on system established and Done Implementation Matrix 2014 Implementation Matrix 2015 FNS indicators. implemented. Activity 5: Establish linkages with Links established with key Not done- Not done due to budgetary constraints Not done due to budgetary an institution of higher learning to technical partners (for Budgetary constraints implement food and nutrition example, University of the constraints security evaluations to inform the Southern Caribbean). work of the Council. Source: MOA, 2011.
35
Implementation of the FNSS continued in 2014 and 2015, but evaluation of the tasks implemented was not undertaken by the M&E unit for these years. The 2014 and 2015 implementation matrices listed tasks for 38 and 47 strategic activities, respectively. As was in the case for the 2011-13 implementation, the 2014 and 2015 tasks were mainly for strategic activities in Goals 1 and 2. The reason that was recorded for the non-implementation of most of the strategic activities in Goal 3 was budgetary constraint (Table 11). Significantly, however, two tasks on the institutional aspects of governance in Goal 3 were completed in 2014 (see Strategic Activities 2 and 3 under G3.A1, Table 11). These were: (i) The multi-sectoral National Food and Nutrition Security Council (NFNSC); and (ii) Technical working groups established for all 3 Goals of the FNSS. The NFNSC will function as the advisory body to the Cabinet on matters related to food and nutrition security with responsibility for the oversight of implementation of the policies and programs of the NFNSS. The Council is chaired by the Minister of Agriculture. Information from MOA staff indicated that the NFNSC and the technical working groups were active in 2014 but less so in 2015. It is expected that these groups will be more proactive in 2016. Guyana has not ratified the right to food in its national constitution. It was expected that this would have been achieved in 2011-2012 by strategic activity A2.1 (“Incorporate the “Right to Food” legislation into the National Constitution”), under Goal 2 of the 2011 NFSS. However, no tasks were specified to implement this activity in the 2011-2015 implementation matrices. No reason was provided for this in the 2011-13 evaluation, or in the 2014 and 2015 implementation matrices, nor could the staff at the MOA interviewed for this study provide any explanation. The right to food is an issue that the government of Guyana may want to legislate with urgency to advance the governance agenda for food and nutrition security. The FAO through its Right to Food Guidelines supports countries wishing to adopt a human rights based approach to food security (FAO, 2011). The right to food is embedded in the human right to “have regular, permanent and free access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensures a physical and mental, individual or collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear” (UN Commission on Human Rights, (2001). However, for the right to food to be effective and binding for individuals, it must be incorporated into the constitution and through framework laws and sectoral laws (Knuth and Vidar, 2011). There are several compelling reasons for government to ratify the right to food legislation: (i) While respecting the diversity of beliefs and traditions, the right to food sets limits and give guidance to the process of FNS governance through three sets of obligations for states: obligation to respect, protect and fulfil (FAO, 2011). That is, the state and its agents cannot arbitrarily deprive access to food as part of its governance. In addition, the state and its agents must ensure fairness when administering food prices and subsidies. Further, the right to food also directs the government to ensure that food safety-nets are in place for those vulnerable to food insecurity; (ii) The concepts of food security governance and the right to food are sine qua non, i.e. one cannot exist without the other. It is when good governance prevails that the right to food is most likely to be realized (FAO, 2011). Good governance creates the environment in which human rights, including the right to food, are respected, protected and fulfilled. In other words, good governance exists in societies where democratic institutions and processes including transparency and accountability prevail, and where the authorities respect and comply with the full range of human rights; (iii) As an extension of (ii), bad governance negatively impacts on genuine economic development and by extension, food and nutrition security in several ways (FAO, 2011; 2015a; 2014a; Paarlberg,
36
2002). It can: (a) Impede new initiatives in food and nutrition security and even accord it to a low priority status; (b) Ignore human capacity levels to effectively and expediently implement food security initiatives; (c) In the absence of rule of law, deter investments in food and nutrition security initiatives, fail to resolve conflicts related to land tenure, water rights, etc.; (d) Exclude the participation of those most vulnerable to food insecurity; and, (e) Encourage corruption, with negative consequences such as loss of revenue to the State, and inefficiencies in expenditures and execution of programmes.
37
CHAPTER 5 THE MAIN PUBLIC POLICIES UNDER THE FNS STRATEGY, AND THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS IN PLACE FOR EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION-MAKING
5.1 Programs/Policies that deal with FNS This section will describe the policies and programs that relate to food and nutrition security that is being implemented in several ministries in Guyana.
Ministry of Agriculture The MOA has been implementing several FNS programs over the years. These are guided by the FNS Strategy, 2011-2020 (analysed in chapter 4), and the National Strategy for Agriculture 2013-2020 (NSA). The National Agriculture Strategy was launched in 2013. It provides the overall strategic framework for advancing agriculture (crop, fisheries, and livestock) in Guyana. The Minister of Agriculture at the time reported that “This is the first overall Agriculture Strategy for Guyana. In the past sub-sector agriculture strategies have been presented, however this is the first time we have developed and presented a strategy that is an overall agriculture strategy, to go along with the various sub-strategies” (MOA, 2013a:4). The Strategy is based on the F-5 Strategic Approach for Agriculture: F1-Food Security—Consolidating the End of Hunger in Guyana, ensuring everyone has enough food in every community; F2—Fiber and Nutritious Food Accessible by citizens – Nutrition Security for All F3—Fuel Production—helping to develop alternative fuel sources, reducing dependency on fossil fuel and creating a Bio-Energy Industry in Guyana F4—Fashion and Health Products—An Agro-Process Industry which creates a new industry in Guyana F5—Furniture and Crafts – An industry which we expect to grow in importance in Guyana
The planned food and nutrition (and other) activities of the FNSS and the NSA are being implemented through the annual work plans of the specialized agencies of the MOA. These agencies are the main inter-face between communities/agricultural producers and the MOA/central government. These agencies include: (i) NAREI (National Agricultural Research and Extension Institute) (ii) GLDA (Guyana Livestock Development Authority (iii) HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT (iv) FISHERIES DEPARTMENT (v) GSA (Guyana School of Agriculture) (vi) NGMC (New Guyana Marketing Corporation) (vii) GRDB (Guyana Rice Development Board (viii) GUYSUCO (Guyana Sugar Corporation) (ix) MMA/ADA (Mahaica, Mahaicony, Abary/Agricultural Development Authority (x) NDIA (National Drainage and Irrigation Authority) (xi) PTCCB (Pesticide and Toxic Chemicals Control Board) (xii) RAC (Rice Assessment Committees (Regions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6).
38
Agriculture contributes substantially to GDP and accounts for over a third of total employment. Importantly, the main occupation of rural and interior communities where poverty is more pervasive is agriculture. Therefore, interventions in the agriculture sector may have the biggest impact on poverty reduction in the short-term. To this end, the government agenda over the 2011-2015 period was for further strengthening the agriculture sector focusing on the following: (i) Expanding productivity in the sugar industry; (ii) Accelerating rice production and exports; (iii) Sustainable forestry and wood processing; (iv) Agriculture diversification and the CSME; and (v) Expanding production and exports of fruits and vegetables The current programs include (Holder, 2015; 2016): Preparatory stages for diversification of Wales sugar estate Restructuring of GUYSUCO operations Pre-planning for large-scale agriculture in the Rupununi and Intermediate savannahs Continued support for the rice, aquaculture and non-traditional crops
In addition, several new projects are expected to be implemented in late 2016. These include:
(a) Sustainable Agricultural Development Program (funded by the Inter-American Development Bank). The main objective of the Program is to increase the productivity of the agricultural sector while maintaining a sustainable and climate resilient use of natural resources in Guyana. (b) Hinterland Environmentally Sustainable Agricultural Development project (HEAD) (funded by IFAD). This is a follow-up from the READ Project, and will include context analysis and capacity building and village and community development and family investments plans. (c) Rural Agricultural Infrastructure Development (RAID) (funded by the Caribbean Development Bank). This is a follow-up from the Caribbean Development Fund (CDF) Access Dams/Roads Improvement Project. The positive impacts will extend to crop and livestock farmers in Regions 4 and 5 (Buxton, Ithaca, Triumph and Mocha) within a 3 year period.
Ministry of Health The current work program with direct bearing to FNS of the Ministry of Health is guided by the country’s National Health and Non-communicable (NCD), and Nutrition Strategies (MOH, 2013a; 2013b; 2011), The health and NCD strategies (MOH, 2013a; 2013b) have components which are integral to FNS, namely (a) Food Security and Nutrition; and (b) Non-communicable diseases. The nutrition strategy (MOH, 2011), expired in 2015, but selected programs have been rolled over since then, as transition to a new nutrition strategy which is being formulated by the current government. These components seek to strengthen the policy, planning and resource framework for improved nutrition in Guyana; improve the adequacy, diversity and quality of diet and reduce the prevalence of malnutrition, particularly for children and pregnant women; and reduce modifiable risk factors and premature mortality from chronic diseases (MOH, 2013). The specific programs in place include: Chronic non-communicable diseases Health Education and Promotion Adolescent, Young Adult Health and Wellness Maternal and Child Health Services
39
Food and Nutrition Programme Health services for Coastal Communities and Indigenous Peoples
Ministry of Social Protection Within the Ministry of Social Protection, two Departments currently execute programs that are directly related to FNS. These are: Department of Social Services. The specific programs include: Old Age Pension (OAP); Social/Public Assistance (PA); Women of Worth Micro-credit scheme (WOW); Women’s Affairs Bureau (WAB) and Men’s Affairs Bureau (MAB); Childcare & Protection (CCPA); Department of Labour Administration. The programs include: The mediation of industrial disputes, occupational safety and health regulation, minimum wage negotiations, employment services and, board of industrial training. The Ministry of Social Protection is continuing its traditional social safety net programs, including income cash support for vulnerable persons; Old Age Pension (OAP); Social/Public Assistance (PA); Women of Worth Micro-credit scheme (WOW); Women’s Affairs Bureau (WAB) and Men’s Affairs Bureau (MAB); Childcare & Protection (CCPA). In addition, the Ministry of education has maintained the school-feeding program and seeking to expand and strengthen it.
Ministry of Education The Government of Guyana commenced its National School Feeding Programme in February, 2010. The Ministry of Education receives support from the Ministry of Local Government and other stakeholders to ensure that this policy initiative of the government is successfully implemented. The National School Feeding Programme targets All Nursery Schools and All Primary Schools in Grades 1 and 2. The School Feeding Programme was implemented in Regions 1, 2,3,4,5,6,10 and Georgetown. (Regions 7, 8 and 9 are targeted separately). The Programme consists of biscuits and juices, both locally made. All schools are required to observe the following Regulatory framework.
Operations
Head teachers are responsible for the coordination of the programme in their respective schools. A school report register must be in place at every school. Inspection Visits by Ministry Officials will occur. Snack break must be effected in the morning sessions and be consistent with normal 'break' in the respective schools' timetables. Under no circumstance must these items be offered for sale or have parents make any monetary contribution.
Feeding Programme
All targeted schools will issue seven (7) units of biscuits and one (1) unit of Topco juice to each child. There shall be no discrimination under any circumstance. Storage of stocks should be done in an area free from rodents, insects and possible contamination.
40
Distribution Logistics
Distribution will occur on a termly or monthly basis where possible. In this regard a network system is being developed to distribute the snacks from central points in Regions 2, 4, 6 and 10. Economy of time, cost effectiveness and best practices would be central to the distribution system; accordingly the used land and river transport ought to be coordinated for uplifting and delivery of the snacks. The sole distributors are Banks DIH Limited and Demerara Distillers Limited for the biscuits and juices respectively.
The current government will expand the warm meals and general school feeding programmes (Minister of Education Budget Speech 2016).
Ministry of Indigenous People’s Affairs (MIPA) The MIPA is currently implementing several projects which are directly or indirectly related to FNS. These include:
Hinterland Employment and Youth Service Capital projects Presidential grants Amerindian Development Fund Amerindian Land Titling Project Hinterland Scholarships
5.2 Global, Hemispheric and Regional Mandates and Domestic FNS Policies
Guyana’s national FNS Strategy, 2011-2020, acknowledged a commitment to global mandates— The World Food Summit (WFS) (1996), The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs several) (2000), and FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines on Right to Food. The latter is still in effect, but he WFS and the MDGs expired in 2015. In terms of regional mandates, the Strategy acknowledged Caricom’s Regional Food and Nutrition Security Strategy and Action Plan, as well as the Hunger-Free Latin America and the Caribbean Initiative (HFLACI), which was launched in 2005. Guyana is a signatory to the Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC) plan for food and nutrition security and the eradication of hunger by 2025. The CELAC plan was adopted in January 2015 by 33 countries of the CELAC states (CELAC, 2014; FAO, 2014). The objective of the CELAC plan is to contribute to “achieving concrete results that translate into significant improvements in the quality of life of our peoples, aimed at the eradication of poverty, especially extreme poverty, guaranteeing food and nutrition security, with gender mainstreaming and respect for the diversity of food habits, tackling the challenges of food and nutrition security with a view to the eradication of hunger and the enjoyment of the Right to Food, especially by vulnerable sectors” (CELAC, 2014: 5). The Plan consists of the following four pillars: 1. Coordinated strategies to strengthen in-country legal and institutional frameworks for food security, facilitate trade, prevent food losses and waste, and promote food supply programmes. 2. Timely and sustainable access to safe, adequate, sufficient and nutritious food for all people through conditional transfer programmes, creating income and employment opportunities and strong support for family farming.
41
3. Nutritional wellbeing and assurance of nutrients for all vulnerable groups, respecting the diversity of eating habits 4. Stable production and timely attention to socio-natural disasters that can affect food availability
The Plan proposes ten Lines of Action (LOA) and 58 Measures all aligned to the four Pillars to achieve the Plan’s objective. LOA 1, which is aligned to Pillar 1, is of particular importance to the issue of governance; it proposes the strengthening of institutional frameworks for FNS, and contains measures designed to advance the Right to Food and governance for FNS and poverty eradication. In particular, the measures include, inter alia: (a) Raising the Human Right to Food to the highest legal status in the countries; (b) Encouraging countries to establish or strengthen the legal policy framework for achieving the Right to Food; (c) Strengthening the implementation of legislative FNS initiatives through effective resource mobilization and give visibility to the mobility of available resources aimed at FNS within the associated institutions; (d) Encouraging countries to establish or strengthen greater and more inclusive governance on FNS and poverty eradication; (e) Encouraging and reinforcing social participation in the development, monitoring and evaluation of public policies of FNS; and (f) Creating or strengthening inter-sectoral committees at the national level for monitoring and permanent evaluation of policies, programs and actions carried out.
Guyana is also a signatory to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 2016-2030, which now define the development agenda of developing countries for the next 15 years. The 17 goals and 169 targets of the SDGs are ambitious and comprehensive, and cover social, economic development, and environmental outcomes. Goals 1, 2, and 8 address poverty; hunger; food and nutrition security; sustainable agriculture; sustainable and inclusive (pro-poor) economic growth; unemployment; and conditions of work. The SDGs are similar in intent as the Development Foundations (1-15) listed in the Political Manifesto (2015), of the political coalition party currently in government in Guyana. Goals 1, 2 and 8 are consistent with the goals of Guyana’s FNS strategy. The SDGs promise a truly transformative development agenda that is both universal and adaptable to country-specific conditions. So programs to achieve the SDGs can be designed to address the root or structural causes that have constrained Guyana’s development over the past 50 years.
5.3 Systems for Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is a management tool for improving the efficiency of expenditures in projects and programs. It can also identify what works, what does not, and the reasons why. During the last decade Guyana has initiated several mechanisms linked to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of economy-wide public expenditures. In 2011, an M&E Action Plan for Guyana was produced, with the purpose of defining an M&E system and associated Action Plan that would be appropriate for Guyana (Lahey, 2011). Recently, Cuesta and Guzmán (2014), on behalf of the IDB, reviewed the country’s current M&E capabilities, analysed the proposed M&E Action Plan, provided recommendations to improve the design and implementation of the M&E Action Plan. The review concluded that, in general: (i) The country does not have a legal framework that properly serves M&E; (ii) The institutional capacities of M&E in Guyana are in an initial phase; (iii) The implementation of M&E tools Data Collection Systems is still at an early stage; and (iv) Monitoring and evaluation activities are just starting.
42
For these reasons, it is uncommon to find that performance information is utilized for policymaking purposes to correct the course of the institutions, programs, or projects, or to improve planning and budgeting decision-making. Cuesta and Guzmán (2014) made several recommendations to strengthen the country’s M&E system.
The MOA does have an M&E unit and system in place since 2011, geared to enhance decision- making at all levels in the implementation and coordination of agriculture policies and programmes in Guyana. The M&E system provides data on the following for all specialized agencies in the ministry: (i) Output monitoring, focusing on physical and financial inputs, activities and outputs; (ii) Outcome monitoring, assessing the use of outputs and measuring benefits (iii) Impact assessment, assessing impact for target groups in comparison with objectives. The Monitoring & Evaluation Unit also performs a coordinating role by interfacing with focal points in each specialized agency that provide data to the unit. A Committee of Focal Points has also been active, with monthly meetings of the focal points and M&E Unit to discuss M&E related matters and agriculture statistics. Several key challenges to M&E were identified in 2014, including lack of time and commitment of staff to M&E process; improper staff appointed as M&E focal points; late submissions of M&E reports; untrained M&E staff; undeveloped system of data source, identification and documentation (MOA, 2014).
43
CHAPTER 6 SYNTHESIS OF MAIN FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on a synthesis of the main findings from (i)-(iv), this chapter makes recommendations on the appropriateness of the current FNS Strategy and governance structure for addressing FNS, the Right to Food challenge, and strategies for enhancing the governance structure for implementing the FNS policy.
6.1 Synthesis of Main Findings
6.1.1 The Socio-Economic Situation and Political Leadership Perspective on FNS Guyana is one of only three CARICOM countries that has successfully met the World Food Summit (1996), and the MDG (2000), hunger goals of halving between 1990 and 2015 the absolute number and proportion of persons who were undernourished (suffered from food depravation or hunger), in 1990. Additionally, the country has met targets in five other MDGs, and made significant progress in targets in the other MDGs. With respect to the four components of FNS, Guyana has sufficient food calories, protein and fats available to meet the recommended population food goals (RPFG). Sweeteners and sugars are significantly in excess of RPFG, and food imports, characteristically high in refined carbohydrates, sodium, fats and sweeteners (FAO, 2015b), have been increasing over the years. These food sources should be closely monitored in light of increasing prevalence of over-weight and obesity, the main risk factors in chronic non-communicable diseases, which are now the main public health problems in the country. Poverty, unequal distribution of income, and unemployment, particularly high among youths, are the main factors that adversely impact on accessibility to food. The 2011 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), 2011-2015, and its two predecessors (PRSP, 2001 and PRSP, 2006), have been Guyana’s main economic policy frameworks over the past decade to boost growth and reduce poverty. However, these PRSPs have not produced the economic growth and poverty reduction rates envisaged by their proponents. In this regard, there is a large body of literature from many countries which shows that economic growth alone may not reduce poverty unless explicit pro-poor strategies are followed (www.worldbank.com). Further, growth that derives from the intensive use of unskilled labour (such as for example in agriculture where many of the poor live in rural areas), will have a greater immediate impact on reducing the incidence of poverty than will growth built on skilled labour, given that the poor are more likely to be unskilled (Loayza and Raddatz, 2006). Finally, while there is consensus in the literature that growth tends to be neutral in its effect on income distribution, there is evidence that that faster economic growth is necessary to reduce poverty in countries with high inequality (Lopez, 2004).
The political leadership of both the government and main opposition party in Guyana have demonstrated keen interest in developing agriculture and ensuring food and nutrition security for the citizens of the country. This should be expected given that agriculture is a major contributor to the country’s GPD, employment, export earnings, and food self-sufficiency. The sector also provides livelihoods for most of the households in the rural areas where over 70% over the country’s population resides. However, Guyana has an enduring historical legacy as a racially polarized society. This has harboured anxieties, real or perceived, within the two major ethnic groups on ethnic securities, inclusion, participation and other
44 principles of good governance. These anxieties are accentuated by Guyana’s poor performance in several macro-level political indicators of governance computed by the World Bank. For five of the six governance indicators, Guyana ranks below the 50th percentile compared to over 200 countries. In addition, Guyana’s rankings in three of these indicators, namely, government effectiveness, rule of law, and control of corruption, have declined between 2010 and 2016. The quality of governance at the macro-political level does shape a country’s policymaking environment; this in turn determines food and nutrition security outcomes. As a major governance issue, the Right to Food should be elevated as a national priority and take a more conspicuous position in the implementation of FNS activities. Moreover, this has to be an urgent task. Indeed, USAID-sponsored studies on governance and democracy in Guyana concluded that there is only a small window of opportunity—about 18 months—within which real democratic consolidation can take root. Once that opportunity has been lost, then the government eases into the historically conditioning mould where good governance becomes a mere appendage to wealth seeking of a small class of politicians and their support group (USAID, 2016).
6.1.2 Institutional Structures for Implementing FNS Guyana has a good set of government ministries that can support the implementation of the country’s food and nutrition security strategy. These include the Ministries of Agriculture, Health, Education, Social Protection, Communities, Business, Finance, and Natural Resources. Some of these ministries have food and nutrition security explicitly stated as an integral part of their core mandates; others perform critical functions, without which, food and nutrition security would be severely compromised. With the possible exception of the Ministry of Agriculture, many personnel in other government ministries and agencies (including very senior policy makers), are not fully sensitive to, or are even aware of the multi-sectoral dimensions of FNS. While they appreciate the concept when it is explained to them, these personnel invariantly opined that the notion seem at variance with the ministries’ and agencies’ specific mandates, the boundaries of which would appear to be blurred by a multi-sectoral approach to FNS. A key vehicle for efficient transmission of good governance for FNS is a well-functioning local government—the locus of direct inter-face between decentralized government and beneficiaries of food and nutrition security and related policy interventions. Officers in Local Governments are elected from members of the communities in which they live. The Guyana Constitution stipulates that Local Government elections must be held every three years, yet since independence in 1966, local government elections were held twice in 24 years (1970 and 1994), and most in March 2016, 24 years after the last local government elections. In such circumstances there is a high level of centralized control, facilitated by the absence of regularly stipulated local government elections. In this context, the notion of local self-governance is frustrated and even minor decisions have to be approved by the central government. A recent assessment by the USAID (2016) on the macro-political governance in Guyana concluded that: (a) There was a systemic lack of information about the policies and activities of the national government at the regional and local levels; (b) Staff are all centrally appointed and transferred at the will of the central government; (c) The Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs) are supposed to inter-face between the central government and the NDCs, yet most of the lower-level councils interface directly with the central government for approvals on basic issues; (d) The RDCs controlled the NDCs, and direct the use of its centrally funded budget allocation; (e) There is a perception of high levels of corruption in local governance, with the belief that this mirrors the model from the national level. Hopefully, the recent May 2016 local government elections, the formulation of Regional Development Plans, and the establishment
45 of Local Government Commission, will enhance local self-governance, and strengthen the participation of beneficiaries in the public policies, programs and strategies designed for local communities.
6.1.3 Implementation of the FNSS The Guyana Food and Nutrition Security Strategy (FNSS) has been in implementation phase since 2011, the year it was launched. The strategy is fairly comprehensive, with three goals that cover all four components of FNS, and 111 strategic actions crafted to achieve those goals. The FNSS recommended an institutional framework for its implementation and coordination, which provides for participation by a wide range of stakeholders, including various levels of government (national, regional, local). Only a small part of this framework, namely, the multisectoral National Food and Nutrition Security Council (NFNSC), and technical working groups established for all 3 Goals of the FNSS, have been formally implemented in 2014, four years after the FNSS was launched. The implementation of the FNSS is facilitated by annual implementation matrices, which have been compiled for 2011-2013, 2014 and 2015. Over the period 2011-13, these implementation plans were initiated by a coordinating committee within the Ministry of Agriculture and a special Parliamentary Select Committee (MOA, 2014). In 2014, the NFNSC assumed the coordinating and implementation functions for the FNSS. One of the main tasks of this coordination was to ensure that the responsible entities identified in the FNSS implementation matrix include strategic activities (with associated tasks) of the FNSS into their annual work plans. This information was then summarized in an Annual Implementation Matrix, which was then used for monitoring and evaluation. There have been a fairly good set of tasks associated with the strategic activities but mainly with two goals of the FNSS that have been implemented over the past five years. An evaluation of the strategic activities that were implemented during 2011-2013 was conducted by the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit within the Ministry of Agriculture. Of the 47 activities, for which complete data were available, 43 achieved a grade of satisfactory (50-69% completion) or better. However another 38 activities could not be evaluated because the agencies that implemented them did not provide sufficient information. Of significance also, most of the activities related to the institutional aspects of governance (e.g., the Right to Food legislation; implementing the entire FNSS recommended implementation framework; establishing a consultation system for wide participation of stakeholders in the implementation of the FNSS; etc.), were not implemented over the 2011-2015 period. This must be corrected as a matter of urgency. While the current structure of the NFNSC is adequate and has functioned well in 2014, it was not very active in 2015. This is a critical body and needs to be diligent and active to support the implementation of the FNSS. Two other areas of the Council’s work must be highlighted: (i) There should be regular and dedicated meetings between the NFNSC and the responsible entities listed in the Implementation Plan to ensure that the entities’ annual work plans have tasks that are systematically aligned with the activities/goals of the FNSS. It would appear that the current practice is that the entities are mandated to include in their annual work plans activities from the FNSS. These activities are then ex post included in the annual implementation plans rather than having been decided upon ex ante at dedicated planning meetings with the NFNSC. The absence of these planning meetings run the risk that the entities would pursue food and nutrition security through the lens of their own technical and sectoral mandates, rather than advancing the programs and activities in the FNSS; (ii) The annual implementation plan should have an inbuilt mechanism for monitoring and evaluation. This is a critical management tool which tracks progress of the implementation process, and
46
facilitates structured data/information gathering that eases the evaluation of program implementation.
6.2 Recommendations
6.2.1 Political Governance (i) The government is encouraged to work harder with all state actors to achieve higher rankings in all six of the World Bank Governance Indicators. The government is also encouraged to continue its initiative to engage multi-stakeholders inclusion in small steps, building trust and cooperation. This can take the form of soliciting inputs for a visioning policy on long-term development of the country, and similar nationalist programs. Secondly, the international institution such as the FAO should dialogue with the government about the possibility of establishing a Parliamentary Front for hunger, poverty reduction or food and nutrition security. Several Central and Latin American Countries have made progress in this area, and Guyana can learn lessons from those experiences.
(ii) Given the mutually reinforcing relationship between good governance and the Right to Food, a task should be included in the FNSS implementation matrix as a matter of urgency, to pursue legislation to ratify the Right to Food into the National Constitution.
6.2.2 Policy Governance (i) The FNS strategy (2011) articulated an impressive framework for managing and coordinating the implementation of the FNSS. It is recommended that this model be operationalized with adequate staffing, office space and other required resources. (ii) Integrate aspects of CELAC and SDGs into the FNS Strategy Annual Work Program. Both the CELAC Action Plan and the SGDs have activities that will enhance food and nutrition security in Guyana. The CELAC Actions are particularly strong on governance, while the SDGs go beyond symptoms to the structural underpinnings that give rise to food insecurity, vulnerability, poverty and all the debilitating conditions of poor housing, sanitation, transportation and so on. Given Guyana’s commitment to these global and hemispheric mandates, every effort should be made to integrate these Actions and Goals as an integral part of the annual work programs for FNS.
(iii) Institutional Governance (i) It is recommended that systematic training among a wide cross section of employees in key government ministries and agencies be undertaken on the concept of and imperatives for multisectoral cooperation and partnerships in advancing the FNS agenda in the country. (ii) The capacity of local governments should be strengthen to plan and implement policies and programs, as well as training in group dynamics, conflict resolution, and consensus- building.
47
(iii) Funding and other resources should be provided to ensure the implementation of the strategic activities in Goal 3 of the FNSS, which pertains mainly with the institutional aspects of governance; (iv) There should be regular and dedicated meetings between the NFNSC and the responsible entities listed in the Implementation Plan to ensure that the entities’ annual work plans have tasks that are systematically aligned with the activities/goals of the FNSS. (v) The annual implementation plan should have an in-built mechanism for monitoring and evaluation. This is a critical management tool which tracks progress of the implementation process, and facilitates structured data/information gathering that eases the evaluation at the end of the year.
48
CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Guyana has made good progress in advancing the food and nutrition security agenda in the country. It is one of only three CARICOM countries that have met the WFS (1996) and MDG (2000) hunger targets. The country has also met several of the other MDGs and made significant progress in others. Guyana is self-sufficient in food. There is sufficient food energy available to meet the recommended population food goals (RPFG) of the population. However, there are three areas that pose threats to the country’s food and nutrition security situation. First, poverty, unemployment and a highly unequal distribution of income constrain individual and households’ effective access to food. Second, the nutritional adequacy component of food and nutrition security is compromised by unhealthy eating habits and other lifestyle behaviours that drive the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity, main risk factors in the rise in chronic non- communicable diseases which are the main public health problems in the country. Finally, frequent drought, floods, and intrusion of salt-water from the ocean pose severe problems for agriculture production and livelihoods which are concentrated on the coastlands of the country. There are several areas where bad governance of FNS were observed. Firstly, the policymaking environment that exists in Guyana is difficult and weak and prevents the prospects for more robust food and nutrition security outcomes. Guyana is a highly racialized and polarized society, and by not making FNS a significant part of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (the man economic framework of the country since 2001), the issue could become political capture by particular groups rather than a national development goal. Secondly, the prolonged absence of a democratically elected and well-functioning local government over many decades, and where members of parliament are selected by their political parties rather than the constituencies they represent, are antithetical to a mobilized constituency pushing the issue of FNS higher on the public and political agenda. Government expenditure averages about 66 percent of GDP. This places considerable resources and discretion at the central government level, especially in the context where local governments have been non-functional for decades. Thirdly, FNS requires a multi- sectoral coordinating agency. A good model has been recommended in the FNSS but only aspects of it have been implemented since the strategy was launched in 2011. This resulted in responsibilities for food and nutrition security being very poorly coordinated, with public sector entities pursuing food and nutrition security through the lens of their own technical and sectoral mandates. Fourthly, politics in Guyana has been centralized, and polarized along racial lines. Within this context, and with a Westminster-type “winner-takes-all” political system, coupled with poor performance, these have impacted negatively on economic development, and by extension, food and nutrition security in the country. Fifthly, one of the most enduring problems that have inhibited development and food and nutrition security in Guyana is the failure of the two main political parties to find the middle grounds and place the national development agenda above core party principles through consensus-building on key policy decisions. Finally, from the assessment of governance for FNS in Guyana, this report makes several recommendations: (i) As a governance issue, the Right to Food has to be addressed more boldly and explicitly in Guyana. There are strategic activities in the national FNS strategy that, if implemented with due diligence, will support the Right to Food in Guyana. (ii) The national FNS strategy (2011) has a good model for FNS coordination. Moreover, an actual Coordinating Committee was in existence, but expired in 2015. Effort should be expended to
49
reactivate this multi-sectoral coordinating committee as an imperative for advancing the FNS agenda in Guyana. (iii) There are strategic activities and goals in the CELAC Action Plan and the SDGs that could be adopted by the national FNS strategy to reduce poverty and create employment in Guyana. (iv) Finally, every effort should be made by the government to engage the opposition in supporting and partnering in developmental projects. Additionally, international organizations such as the FAO and UNDP should initiate discussions with the government to establish a Parliamentary Front on Hunger, Poverty Reduction and FNS, as countries in Central and Latin America have already done.
50
REFERENCES
Bourguignon, F (2003). Growth Elasticity of Poverty Reduction: Explaining Heterogeneity across Countries and Time Periods" in Inequality and Growth. www. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPGI/Resources/342674-1206111890151/13565_32322_ growth_elasticity.pdf Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF (2014). Guyana Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey. 2014. Georgetown. Guyana. ———(2008). Guyana Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2006, Final Report. Georgetown, Guyana: Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF. Georgetown. Guyana. Candel, J. “Food security governance: a systematic literature review”. Journal of Food Security. Vol. 6: pp 585–601. CELAC (2014). CELAC Plan of Action 2014. Havana, Cuba. Corral, M., B. Faughnan, L. Lachmansingh, D. Orcés, E. Zechmeister, D. Zéph (2009). The Political Culture of Democracy in Guyana, 2009: The Impact of Governance. Vanderbilt University. USA. Crawford, C (1993). “Rural Development in Guyana” in La Gra, et al. (1993) Proceedings of Review of the Agriculture Sector in Guyana. Volume 1 and Volume 2. 1993. Guyana. Lahey, R. (2011). A Strategy and Action Plan for Institutionalizing Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) In Guyana." Georgetown, Guyana: Ministry of Finance. Juan Pablo Cuesta, J., and J. Guzmán (2014). Monitoring and Evaluation Systems in Guyana. IDB. Washington. D.C., USA. Drewnowski, A., and S. Specter (2004) Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Vol 79, pp 6-16. Egoumé-Bossogo, P. E. Faal, R. Nallari and E. Weisman (2013). Guyana Experience with Macroeconomic Stabilization, Structural Adjustment and Poverty Reduction. IMF. Washington, D.C. USA. FAO (2015a). Governance for Food and Nutrition Security in the Caribbean. Issue Brief # 17. FAO Sub- regional Office for the Caribbean. Barbados. ——— (2015b). State of Food Insecurity in CARICOM Caribbean. Sub-regional Office for the Caribbean. FAO. Barbados. ———(2014a). FAO Regional Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean Thirty-third Session Santiago, Chile, 6 to 9 May 2014. Panel 1: Governance for Food and Nutrition Security in Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago. Chile. (Document LARC/14/INF/13). ———(2014b). Plan for Food Security, Nutrition and Hunger Eradication 2025. http://www.plataformacelac.org/en ——— (2014c). The Current Status of the Right to Adequate Food in Food and Nutrition Policy Designs. (Prepared by Maartin Immink). FAO. Rome. ——— (2011). Good Food Security Governance: The Crucial Premise to the Twin-Track Approach. Background Paper. ESA Workshop, Rome 5-7 December 2011. ———(2008). An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security. Online. Available at: www.foodsec.org/docs/concepts_guide.pd (Accessed, October, 16, 2016). Freedom House (various years). Freedom in the World. www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom- world/guyana (accessed July-August, 2016). Gafar, J (2003). Guyana: From State Control to Free Markets. Nova Science Publishers. New York. ——— (1996). Guyana: From Cooperative Socialism to Economic Liberalization and Growth: 1976-1994. Journal of Developing Areas 31:41-74.
51
Government of Guyana (2015). Project Completion Report: Rural Enterprise and Agricultural Development project (READ). Georgetown. Guyana. ———(2014). Guyana MDG Accelerated Framework: Improve Maternal Health. Georgetown. Guyana. ———(2011). Guyana Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2011-2020. Georgetown. Guyana. ———(2000). Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Georgetown. Guyana. ———(1997). National Development Strategy for Guyana. Office of the President. Georgetown Guyana. Hesse, C. (1995). An Assessment of Local Government and Proposed Recommendations for Future Assistance in Guyana. . National Democratic Institute for International Affairs Washington, D.C., USA. Holder, N (2016). Budget Speech. Minister of Agriculture. February 10, 2016. Georgetown. Guyana. ———(2015). Budget Speech. Minister of Agriculture. August 21, 2015. Georgetown. Guyana. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) (2014). Stagnating Economic Growth in the Caribbean. Washington, D.C. USA. International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2006) Guyana: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Progress Report 2005. IMF Country Report No. 06/364. Washington, D.C. USA. ——— (2004).Guyana: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Progress Report 2004. IMF Country Report No. 04/407. Washington, D.C. USA. Knuth, L and M. Vidar (2011). Constitutional and legal protection of the right to food around the world. FAO. Rome. La Gra, J., C. Carmichael and R. Karamat (1993) (Ed). Proceedings of Review of the Agriculture Sector in Guyana. Volume 1 and Volume 2. 1993. Guyana. Loayza, N. and Raddatz, C (2006). The Composition of Growth Matters for Poverty Alleviation. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4077. The World Bank, Washington. DC. Lopez, J. Humberto (2004). Pro-Growth, Pro-Poor: Is There a Trade-off? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3378. Washington, DC. Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) (2015). An Integrated Agriculture Development Strategy for the Rupununi, Region 9. 2015-2020. Georgetown Guyana. ———(2014). 2011-2013 Report of the Guyana Food and Nutrition Security Strategy: 2011-2020. Georgetown, Guyana. ——— (2013a). A National Strategy for Agriculture in Guyana, 2013-2020. Georgetown Guyana. ——— (2013b). Disaster Risk Management Plan for the Agriculture Sector 2013-2018. MOA 2013 ——— (2011). Guyana Food and Nutrition Security Strategy 2011-2020. Georgetown, Guyana. Ministry of Finance (MOF) (2016). Budget Estimates (2011-2016). Online). Available: http://finance.gov.gy/documents-publications/category/budget-estimates (Accessed September, 2016). Ministry of Health (2013a). Health Vision 2020 “Health for all in Guyana” A National Health Strategy for Guyana 2013 -2020. Ministry of Health. Georgetown. Guyana. ——— (2011). Guyana National Nutrition Strategy, 2011-2015. Georgetown Guyana. ———(2013b). Guyana Strategic Plan for the Integrated Prevention of Chronic Non-communicable Diseases and their Risk factors, 2013-2020. Georgetown. Guyana. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (OECD/UN). 2013). World migration in figures. October 2013. Ostry, J., P. Loungani, and D. Furceri (2016). Neoliberalism: Oversold? Finance and Development. June. IMF. Paarlberg, R (2002). Governance and Food Security in an Age of Globalization. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, 2002. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) (2009). Guyana Country Cooperation Strategy 2010 -2015. Washington, D.C. USA.
52
Smith, Z., G. Smucker and R. Myers (2002). Guyana Democracy and Governance Assessment USAID Democracy Center and USAID/Guyana. Management Systems International, Inc. Washington, DC. USA. Thomas C.Y. (2014). “The Minimum Wage, Trade Unions, and Guyana’s Fight Against Surging Inequality and Poverty.” Stabroek News, October 19. Georgetown Guyana. www.stabroeknews.com (accessed August, 2016). ———(2011). Guyana: Economic Performance and Outlook—The Recent Scramble for Natural Resources. (www.ids.org; accessed August, 2016) ———and M. Bynoe (2006). Guyana. In Harmon Thomas (ed) 2006. Trade Reform and Food Security— Country Case Studies and Synthesis. FAO. Rome. ——— (2000). Poverty and the 1999 Guyana Survey Living Conditions. Institute of Development Studies, University of Guyana. Georgetown. UN Commission on Human Rights (2001). 57th session, Report by the Special Rapporteur Jean Ziegler on the Right to Food, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2001/53. United Nations (2016). The Sustainable Development Goals. [Online]. Available: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals. 2015. [Accessed: June, 2, 2016]. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2016). Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance. Assessment of Guyana. Final Report. Tetra Tech Ard. Vermont, USA ——— (2015). Latin America Public Opinion Project. ——— (2000). “USAID Quarterly Report. Guyana: Strengthening Democracy”. Grant No. 504-G-00-95- 0009-00, January 1-March 31, 2000. www.usaid.gov. World Bank (2002). Guyana Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and Joint IDA/IMF Staff Assessment. Report No. 24172-GUA. Washington, D.C. USA. ———(2016). Worldwide Governance Indicators. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#doc. Online. Accessed October, 16, 2016. Zechmeister, E. and M. Seligson (2015). Advances, Challenges, and Setbacks in Democratic Public Opinion in Guyana: The LAPOP Americas Barometer. Vanderbilt University. www.AmericaBarometer.org.
53