An expected and commented debate, before and after, was the one that took place in the Departmental Assembly of Cesar yesterday. The Duma is a natural setting for political control, an exercise that must be weighed by citizens because not only is democracy exercised, but transparency is also sought, good performance of the public function and that works and services fulfill the common good. This time it was the representative Claudia Margarita Zuleta, the only voice of opposition, who expressed herself luminously with the thorough investigation of the matter.
The Agricel project was an idea of former governor Luis Alberto Monsalvo, as agricultural production units using the peasant vocation and modern irrigation and production technologies. His idea was to establish several Agricels, but he did not have the planning, financing and administrative capacity, partly due to his judicial problems, to develop them; He concentrated his efforts on the Toco village, municipality of San Diego, the emblematic place of the past of violence and displacement in the department.
A commendable productive bet, without a doubt; “My censure regarding the project is the way it is executed, not the aspirational aspect,” stated Deputy Zuleta.
However, the absence of knowledge (know how) for the type of entrepreneurship, and the technology to be used and the ‘imposition from outside’ of a model desirable for the ruler but not the result of the desire and traditional habits of the beneficiaries led to the failure . That is why the initial main failure was inadequate or no socialization.
It is evident that there was incompetence, laziness, but also aggravation due to external conditions such as the pandemic and the delays in supplies in the world. However, the summons stated that she acted maliciously given, among others, the cost overruns. In the end, the 400 hectares to be benefited would be completed – on April 29, as promised by the Secretary of Agriculture José Francisco Sequeda, active in the defense – by irrigating less than 200 with two ‘pivots’, the only ones accepted by the community, of 4 already acquired from the project, with a final investment of $8.5 billion.
Not to mention the levels of complexity and social conflict. Of the problems of the peasant association and the failure to identify common purposes, in an environment in which everyone ‘pulls for their own benefit’. A fact that is aggravated because the coverage of the radius of the ‘central pivot’ -circular irrigation equipment- does not cover all associates equally. Some yes, others no, some with more hectares benefited than others.
By putting the two twin irrigation systems into operation at the end of April, comes sustainability, productivity and commercialization. You cannot overcome a setback with a bigger one.
This, in the face of agrarian reform processes, is a good example – to be taken into account by senior government, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Rural Development Agency, ADR – of how good productive bets and the use of agricultural technologies tip can fail. If in the private sector many projects fail, risking own and family resources, many more are likely to fail when it is the State that wants to carry them out. The business state is not the best administrator, although there are some exceptions, few indeed.