GMB farmers’ database: Let’s avoid cotton sector scenario
IN A surprising develiopment, the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) recently issued a communique on grain deliveries for the 2017 /18 season in which it addresses a number of important matters that usually make life less palatable for farmers and the generality of Zimbabweans.
Of course, this is sure evidence of planning ahead, which is important for the smooth rolling out of programmes come the 2017 /18 farming season.
The communique aptly started by announcing the producer price of $390 per tonne for crops such as maize, sorghum and millet, followed by a reassurance on the availability of empty bags that are currently being moved to its depots across the country.
The recommended grain bags are inscribed “GMB” and are ultraviolet stabilised. They are now available at all GMB depots at a cost of $0,60 per 50kg bag.
The GMB will repurchase the same bags after use at $0,40 each.
The GMB urged farmers to use these bags, as they are specifically made for long term storage of grain and this will minimise post-harvest losses.
The communique also touched on grain quality and the recommended moisture content, which is 12,5 percent and farmers can ascertain their grain’s moisture content by taking it to the GMB for testing free of charge.
It was the FOURTH point on the communique that grabbed my attention and I could not help but succumb to a burning desire to talk about it a bit.
GMB is in the process of registering farmers across the country, as a way of maintaining an up to date database of its farmers and for ease of payment.
Upon registering, farmers will be issued with a GMB Farmer Identification Card, which they should present at any depot whenever they need services.
The idea of a database for grain producers immediately reminded me of irregularities unearthed recently in the cotton farmers’ database.
If this mumbo jumbo is allowed to happen to a crop that is as critical as maize to the livelihoods of the majority of Zimbabweans, then we will be in big trouble.
Databases can be used for both good and bad. The positive thing about GMB having a database of its farmers is that it will be easy for them to prepare for marketing seasons, input mobilisation (as has been happening in recent seasons when Government input schemes are rolled out through the parastatal) and the general monitoring of marketing discipline.
It also makes life easy for farmers when they want to secure services in various areas of their trade, which makes their business operations enjoyable and more exciting.
The idea of establishing a database is also one sure way of curbing side-marketing though of late the database has become a cog in promoting the vice if it is not monitored properly.
While it is crystal clear that most critical business records are generated, managed and stored electronically, creating efficiencies and cost-savings for businesses, the weak link is that digital information can be easily deleted, altered or manipulated.
Electronic records have been manipulated in cases ranging from stock options fraud to loan fraud.
Recently, journalists unearthed gross anomalies in the cotton farmers’ database, which exposed side-marketing activities and other unethical business practices. This was a sure case of electronic records manipulation that GMB must guard against.
The cotton scenario may simply mean that some individuals were attempting to change the electronic records to hide something and in the process cover their backdating nefarious activities.
Of course the risk of critical business records being tampered with, deleted, altered or manipulated in any way can be best avoided through a combination of sound business practices and supporting data-level technology.
For instance, a solid first line of defence is to ensure that only authorised individuals have access to critical business records.
GMB, therefore should adopt strong corporate policies governing the access and usage of stored digital information so that records are not accessed and used by people with ulterior motives.
In this day of high technological inventions, GMB needs to put in place solutions that provide objective, non-collusive proof of business record integrity that is independent of its people, processes and technology, as well as a method that validates record integrity over the long-term, regardless of changes in the organisation’s technology infrastructure.
Trusted time stamping has been used with a lot of success in most organisations. This practice provides organisations with the ability to establish when a document was created and that it was never altered.
When it is integrated into a records management process, trusted time stamps can be used to verify the content and time integrity of the electronic document and prove that it has never been tampered with over the course of its l life.
Additionally, trusted time stamps are known never to expire, so they can be used to prove the integrity of documents created decades ago, even if a company’s hardware, software or technology providers change.
The time stamp is digitally stored with the original data.
GMB will need to make sure there are no loopholes that fraudsters can capitalise on to alter records, lest principled programmes, for instance, the current Command Agriculture, may see the Government failing to recover the capital it invested in them through unregulated marketing and the country will remain perennial fighters of food shortages.