Prime Minister Gaston Browne provides a robust defence of his statements in the House of Representatives last week where he called on the financial institutions to reserve a percentage of their profits to go towards agricultural loans.
This as UPP spokesperson, D Giselle Isaac has been critical of the comments characterizing them as “bullying” the private sector. But the Prime Minister offered a different perspective, one rooted in pragmatism and national interest.
The Prime Minister underscored a chilling reality: Antigua and Barbuda is one of the most food-insecure countries in the world. He emphasized that if food shipments from the United States ceased for just two to three weeks, a significant portion of the population could face starvation. This dire vulnerability is the driving force behind his appeal to the banking sector.
He argued that while he respects the risk-averse nature of banking, especially when it comes to sectors like agriculture, the time has come to do more. His proposal for the banks was straightforward: after turning a healthy profit—say $60 million—there should be no issue with allocating a small portion (such as 5%, or $3 million) toward agriculture. He even offered ‘government guarantees’ on these agricultural loans, effectively eliminating the risk to the banks.
The Prime Minister was clear: this is not about taxing or forcing banks, but encouraging a ‘voluntary contribution’ to a sector crucial for national survival. He emphasized that if banks do not support agriculture, even their own operations would be at risk in the event of a food crisis. “Where are they going to nyam (eat) the money in the bank?” he quipped, reinforcing the point that ‘everyone is vulnerable’ in a broken food supply chain.
He acknowledged the historical reasons for financial institutions’ reluctance to fund agriculture: the country’s water scarcity, poor soil quality, vulnerability to hurricanes, and farmers’ lack of formal records. But he insisted these challenges are surmountable with the right systems, proper training, and modern technology—even calling for the integration of AI to help modernize farming practices.
He challenged critics to explain why such a practical, protective measure could be considered bullying. “What is so unreasonable about a prime minister who cares about the people… calling upon those who can help, to help?” he asked.
Importantly, the Prime Minister pointed to his personal investment in agriculture—noting that the capital he allocated to farming could have been much more profitable had he invested in real estate. Yet he chose to back food security instead. That, he said, is the type of national service and sacrifice that others in the private sector should emulate.
Although more wealthy individuals are slowly engaging in agriculture, he made it clear: more needs to be done, and it needs to happen now. As the population grows and health needs evolve, the demand for safe, nutritious, and fresh food has never been more urgent, according to the prime minister.
